The Paul Wellstone crash was.....

[VermontDem2004]

Poll question: The Paul Wellstone crash was.....

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. an unfortunate accident planned by the bush regime

you left out option 4

[VermontDem2004]

2. It's either one or the other

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. You gotta think big tent

Anybody who tries to interfere with the lucrative flesh trade, especially when there is a risk of embarrassing close US allies, is a walking unfortunate accident waiting to happen.

[9215]

9. LOL

Nice one.

[VermontDem2004]

20. ok

#1 it was an accident no one planned it, no one executted it.

#2 someone who wanted to see Wellstone dead for whatever reasons done something that made the plane crash.

#3 you are unsure which is it.

[DuctapeFatwa]

59. You sayng the US govt is incapable of planning an unfortunate accident?

I believe that is sedition.

The United States has a proud tradition of unfortunate accident planning that not even Saudi Occupied Arabia can match.

[Cheswick2.0]

85. some people just hate thinking "outside the box"

Gack, I hate that expression but sometimes it is appropriate. Just trying starting a poll with only one response. All the anal retentives blow up and make a huge stinky scene.

:hi: I like your answer, an unfortunate accident planned by someone close to bush or the new senator from Mn.

[Zorra]

142. #2 - Think President Wellstone

in 2004. The perfect democratic candidate?

[0007]

348. beautiful!

*

[theivoryqueen]

3. On SFGate.com

Today - there is an article stating Princess Diana thought that she might be targeted for assassination.

[birdman]

4. Foil-hatters

Leave woodwork immediately - Report to battle stations.

They loaded up his plane with strawberries.

[theivoryqueen]

26. Funny!

[ArkDem]

67. and

cream.

[lindashaw]

5. I have nothing to base my suspicion on, I just never believed it

was an accident. There are just too many small plane crashes carrying congress people.

[tridim]

8. To clarify

There are too many small plane crashes (and anthrax attacks with military grade specimens) on DEMOCRATIC congress people.

[Padraig18]

10. Could it be...

... because they USE 'general aviation' more, and general aviation has a so-so safety record, overall? Think how many news stories you hear every year about people dying in small-plane crashes...

[birdman]

21. Exactly

Politicians (Wellstone, Carnahan, John Heinz, John Tower)

Entertainers (Patsy Cline, John Denver, Rick Nelson, Jim Croce)


Sports figures (Thurman Munson, Roberto Clemente)

Such people do the most flying in small planes. That's
why so many high deaths. It's not a conspiracy. It's
probability.

[VermontDem2004]

22. You forgot

Aaliyah.

[Yupster]

95. and

Buddy Holley
Damn - Bush killed Buddy Holley - the bastard.

[birdman]

109. Oh no ! Bush whacked the Big Fucking Bopper

Oh the humanity.

[AquariDem]

116. Don't forget ELVIS!

Sorry, but this has just gone too far. :grr:

[stickdog]

174. Yep, it was utterly probable that Wellstone would die in a ridiculously

improbable and so far almost completely unexplained accident between the time internal Republican polls showed he would win his re-election and the time Minnesota law said his name must be replaced on the ballot.

[Padraig18]

219. Oh, PUH-leeze!

:eyes:

[stickdog]

230. Nice argument.

Typical.

[in_cog_ni_to]

I think that is

precisely why the repukes use small aircraft to knock off opponents...it can easily be written off as "another small aircraft accident" What are the odds that Mel Carnahan and Paul Wellstone both died JUST prior to an election AND they both just happen to be Democrats?

[BikeDeck]

33. so-so saftey record?

I don't know what you consider a so-so saftey record, but I have general aviation friends and I have no fear of flying with them. And how many planes crash out of the hundreds of thousands of flights in a year?

[Padraig18]

43. Much, *MUCH* higher than for commercial aviation. n/t

[BikeDeck]

46. Much Much higher

is not a very good answer.

I am making these numbers up, but say commercial aviation has an accident rate of .00001% and general aviation has an accident rate of .00003%. Thats 200% higher, but in reality, an infinitesimal number.

[Padraig18]

60. Okee dokee

Here's some real numbers:

"...The number of persons killed in all aviation accidents dropped from 1,171 in 2001 to 618 in 2002. It should be noted that airline fatalities in 2001 accounted for a total of 531 deaths. The 2001 deaths included the September 11 terrorist attacks and the American Airlines flight 587 crash in November. There were no fatalities on scheduled passenger carriers in 2002. The number of general aviation fatalities increased slightly from 562 in 2001 to 576 in 2002...."

Now, common sense tells you that far more people--- FAR MORE--- fly commercially, yet the numbers *not counting those who died on 9-11* are a grand total of 42 greater than the number who died in general-aviation fatalities.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2003/031002.htm

[BikeDeck]

68. I would look at it slightly different

Instead of looking at the total number of people who fly commercial vs. general aviation, I would think a better comparrison would be total flights, commercial vs general and the number of accidents for each.

If a commercial airliner goes down you are looking at hundreds of fatalities, where as if a general aviation craft goes down you are looking at 1 to a dozen.

There is no doubt that commercial flights are the safest way to travel ever invented. But general aviation is extremely safe as well. And I wonder how many of the general aviation accidents are in experimental aircraft, or by stunt piloting.

I have a private airfield 5 miles from my house in a guys back yard. He flys biplanes and does a lot of stunt flying. If he goes down its gonna be classified as a general aviation accident. But the flight was more than a point A to point B transport.

[stickdog]

175. And the safety record of the King Air A-100 specifically?

Keep telling yourself it had to be an accident even though you have no explanation for how the accident happened.

There may be a job for you at the FBI or NTSB someday.

[Padraig18]

220. Have NONE of them ever crashed? n/t

[stickdog]

229. Very few.

Try:

http://www.ntsb.gov

[Padraig18]

242. Wait!

Aren't they part of the cospiracy? *furtive look* :eyes:

[stickdog]

244. Lame appeal to ridicule.

Typical.

[Padraig18]

270. I did

There have been 15 fatalities involving the A-100, and TEN of those fifteen involve the same charter company Wellstone was using!

Probably killed those earlier people to throw us off the scent for when they killed PW, right? :eyes:

[stickdog]

288. And EIGHT of those fifteen died in Wellstone's crash!

So what you are saying is that more people died in Wellstone's crash than in the entire previous history of King Air A-100 flight!

But you probably included Wellstone's flight (the one in question, if you'll recall) in your "analysis" just to throw us off the scent, right?

[Padraig18]

291. 8 people, one crash, 8 dead.

Well, DUH! I'm sure Mrs. Boxworthy who taught you 3rd-grade arithmetic is proud of you today... /sarcasm off

[stickdog]

294. Way to go! Lame appeals to ridicule suit you so well. (NT)

[Padraig18]

299. It's all anyone, including YOU, 'knows'!

And you have presented NOTHING--- NADA--- ZIP--- ZILCH--- BUPKUS--- to prove anything that would even TEND to show it was something besides a tragic, but altogether garden-variety accident.

You ignore facts, experienced pilots, and anything else that doesn't fit neatly into your 'the BFEE did it' conspiracy theory.

[stickdog]

310. Straw man.

You have wholly mischaracterized my modest take -- which is that pilot incapacitation is currently the most tenable theory of why Wellstone's plane crashed.

You are the absolutist here. I am merely suggesting that we shouldn't dismiss any reasonable possibilities until we have enough evidence to do so.

[Padraig18]

314. Ummm

Did *I* ever mention a microwave-generator to incapcitate the pilots? Did *I* ever mention a VOR generator to draw the plane off course? It was NOT a straw man argument---only a GREAT deal more rational than yours. :eyes:

[stickdog]

316. I mentioned a radio beacon (VOR) as a possible explanation for how

the plane got more than a mile off course.

How do you explain how the plane got more than a mile off course?

As for microwave generators, it is simply one of several possibilites:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CBC91-B6FD-1E51-A98A809EC5880105

Of course, I realize that you don't need any stinking explanations.

[Padraig18]

320. no, I don't need any 'stinking explanations'---

What I need is something resembling *proof*. Your proof, and I use that term VERY loosely, wouldn't convince my brain-damaged dog, and he's about as gullible as they come...

[stickdog]

322. Logic 101 Quiz: You say it must have been an accident.

I say it might not have been an accident.

Which of us needs to supply proof?

[Padraig18]

323. Logic 101-A: *You* do

Because the vast majority of plane crashes are accidents--- even ones carrying politicians, and important people, stuff like that...

[stickdog]

324. Proof? (NT)

[Padraig18]

326. So obvious I won't waste time.

I refer you to http://www.ntsb.gov

Find it yourself.

[stickdog]

325. And your proof for this assertion is?

???

[Padraig18]

329. It's a *fact*, not an 'assertion'

Look it up your damned self, like you told me to do on an earlier post. Don't waste any more of my time until you have proof that that is NOT the case.

[stickdog]

358. It's not a fact. The subset of analogous deaths is too small and the

evidence that the vast majority of them were accidents is too weak.

[Padraig18]

362. Stop your sophistry

I went to a Jesuit high school, and you're not EVEN in their class. Address the issue.

[stickdog]

378. Forgive him, father, for he knows not what he says ... (NT)

[Yupster]

96. We have lots of them crash out here in W Texas

that's why this whole thing seems so silly to me.

Yesterday a WW II plane of the Commemorative AirForce (was Confederate Air Force until name change last year) crashed and killed the pilot.

Last week a crop duster got tangled in electri wires, flipped over and landed on the highway. Old boy walked away with minor injuries.

We also have pipeline planes go down from time to time.

It just happens with small planes. Politicians may fly a small plane to five different towns in one day. That's going to catch up to you eventually.

[SharonAnn]

15. Well, let's see, over the years there have been several

Heinz from Pennsylvania (R)
Wright from Texas
Boggs from Louisiana
Carnahan from Missouri
Wellstone from Minnesota
? in Alaska

[Yupster]

97. Didn't a congresscritter from Texas

die in Africa a number of years ago doing relief work?

Cokie Roberts dad who was speaker of the House died in a plane crash in Alaska.

[9215]

17. and further

too few happen to Repugs that are not opposed to some Bush, like some of the repug contra witnesses. John Tower was one.

[birdman]

25. Is that why Bush tried to make Tower

Defense Secretary ?

Because he wanted to whack him ?

[9215]

135. Google "Tower Commission"

As I remember it, there was surprise in that it was not kind to Raygun.

"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

[Padraig18]

6. Oh dear...

:tinfoilhat:

[stickdog]

176. Why am I not surprised that a Clark loving Dean supporter would be

troubled by allegations of a BFEE conspiracy?

[Padraig18]

254. Once again, the rules prevent me from posting an appropriate reply

But if I *were* to post suck a reply, it would be two words-- the first four letters long and the second three--- and they would be accompanied by the extension of my middle finger.

[stickdog]

260. Why not just try another lame appeal to ridicule?

It's served you so well elsewhere.

[Padraig18]

262. Shoo!

*sprinkles troll-b-gone*

PS-- I believe stalking is against the rules, and IMO you are perilously close.

[stickdog]

269. Answering you within a single thread is stalking?

My, you're a paranoid one, aren't you?

[Padraig18]

271. Convenient how you forget about the other day... n/t

[stickdog]

287. What about the "other day"?

talk about :tinfoilhat:

[JohnKleeb]

11. other: a sad day and an abyss of sorrow

[Padraig18]

13. I echo that n/t

May God rest their souls...

[JohnKleeb]

18. The good always die before their time for the most part and before they

can accomplish more greatness.
why do the good ones have to go so soon?
so many names in history. I was gonna one time write an epilogue had RFK lived.

[stickdog]

177. Yeah. RFK also had an unfortunate accident. (NT)

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. Sure funny how many small planes have crashed over the years....

... Aside from Wellstone, the one that really interests me is Salem Bin Laden. Osama's older brother and the guy who funded Junior's first oil company, Arbusto. Apparently, Salem was an experienced pilot who, for some strange reason, one day decided to take a sharp left turn into some high voltage power lines and fry himself.

Now if Osama is truly no longer a partner of the Bush Criminal Empire and considers them the enemy, what do you suppose turned him against them? The murder of his brother probably would do it.

[mhr]

23. Small Aircraft Crash At a Higher Rate Because Most are Piloted

by single pilots in privately owned aircraft.

These pilots are not required to meet the same recurrent training standards as the airlines.

This is not to say that they are bad pilots. However, there is a pretty high correlation between training and safety.

[Padraig18]

27. An anecdote:

One of my cutomers is a 65 year-old private pilot who has been flying for 40+ years. We have talked about the Wellstone accident on several occasions, and he once said said "He should never have taken the chance, with weather that marginal. There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are damned few old, bold pilots"--- and he is a liberal Democrat.

[mhr]

29. It Takes A Disciplined Pilot To Tell a Customer No

eom

[dflprincess]

138. Both Paul and Sheila Wellstone were afraid of flying

If their pilot had said it wasn't safe, they would have listened.

[stickdog]

179. You are ignorant. Wellstone's pilot had another pilot convince Wellstone

that the weather was just fine to fly into Eveleth.

Because the weather was just fine to fly into Eveleth.

[VermontDem2004]

31. I watched coverage of the accident

on CNN and I seen they sky and the area around it and the weather looked mild but well enough for a licensed pilot to handle.

[MrsMatt]

134. the weather in Minnesota in late October

especially northeastern Minnesota is certainly a factor (Lake Superior being one variable). I'm pretty conviced it was just an unfortnate accident, but then, I tend to be on the PollyAnnish side.

[stickdog]

178. Because you haven't investigated the accident.

The weather was fine.

No other planes in the entire state had any trouble landing that day.

[MrsMatt]

380. And you have

an advanced degree in meteorology, not to mention extensive
training in investigating small plane crashes.

[TKP]

79. Pilot

I'm a General Aviation (GA) pilot and the biggest cause of accidents is the pilot or the pilot's customer which has an attitude of "we've got to be there at a certain time". Just like JFK, Jr., he got in way over his head and it killed him. Unfortunately, some (not most) GA pilots are willing to take chances, when if they were to wait an hour, it would allow the weather to pass and they'd have a much safer flight.

[stickdog]

180. You are ignorant. Wellstone's pilot was NOT going to fly into Duluth

because he thought the visibility was too poor.

However, when he got the METAR for Eveleth and talked to another pilot who just came from Eveleth, he concluded that the weather was just fine to land at Eveleth.

Because the weather was just fine to land at Eveleth and nobody else had ANY problems with it.

[TKP]

435. dork

Son, you're an idiot. Weather conditions can change drastically, expecially in the winter.

I take it you're not a pilot, and heaven help us all if you ever become one.

[stickdog]

439. Except the weather didn't change drastically that day.

But thanks for the pointless ad hominem anyway.

[Wwagsthedog]

14. Don't forget Mel Carnahan's death

Yes, he beat john ashcroft in the election following his demise but now we have that loser as attorney general. What a sad twist of the knife.

[9215]

361. Ashcroft also benefited from another dems death in 1976.

Another liberal connected to Ashcroft family died in plane crash on eve of election victory. James Litton, 1976. One prob, Ashcroft was a chief beneficiary of Litton's death..
: http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=3542&forum=DCForumID22

In 1976 Litton a liberal populist candidate was expected to win in a landlslide against Repug opponent Danforth when he died in a plane crash
As a result of his death, however, his opponent was given the Senate seat. His Republican opponent was John Danforth, then Missouri's Attorney General.
(<http://www.kcstar.com/item/pages/election.pat,local/3774d78c.a17,.html>)
Who got Danforth's seat as the state AG when he moved to the Senate? John Ashcroft. When Danforth retired from the Senate, who was tapped to replace him? John Ashcroft.
(<http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ashcroft001222.html>)
Strang how Ashcroft keeps popping up, isn't it? He gets his state AG seat because of one plane crash. When he's going down to certain defeat his opponent Mel Carnahan dies in another plane crash. That he lost the seat to a dead man could be viewed as bad timing. He should have waited until closer to election night.

The mistake wasn't repeated with Wellstone, he died the day before the due date for a replacement.



http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Bottoms/bottoms25.html


How very convenient...

...that Democratic anti-war Senator Wellstone died, to the advantage of his Republican adversary, whose ascension to the Senate will give a majority to the Republican Party.

...that Wellstone died right after Republicans conceded privately that he was going to win his Senate race in spite of, or maybe even because of, his anti-war vote.

...that he died after voting against Bush's unilateral attack on Iraq, against Bush's Homeland Security Department, and in favor of an independent 9-11 investigation over Bush and Cheney's objections.

...that he died one day before time ran out to name a replacement candidate. Running posthumously, Wellstone would surely have won, and a replacement named by Minnesota Democrats. Replacement candidate over-the-hill Mondale has less of a chance. Senator Wellstone’s wife was conveniently killed also, preventing a repeat of John Ashcroft’s defeat two years ago by the wife of newly deceased air crash victim Mel Carnahan.

[mhr]

16. I Am a Commercial Pilot And Would Love To Believe Bush Did It

But it strikes me as an accident, specifically a stall-spin accident.

This occurs when the airplane flies to slowly for the wings to generate lift.

This can be caused by pilot error. During an instrument approach, maintaining airspeed is paramount. A moment's inattention can have serious consequences.

[Minstrel Boy]

40. As I'm not myself a pilot,

I'd be interested to read what you think of this re: stalling the aircraft. Also, what might account for the simultaneous loss of communication?


The latest explanation, published in the Star Tribune (29 December 2002), is that the pilots committed a blunder that turned into a stall, where airspeed had dropped to 85 knots. That theory does not withstand critical inspection, when the pilots' qualifications and the suitability of the weather are taken into account. Indeed, with this plane, a loud alarm sounds at 85 knots warning the pilot(s) that a stall is imminent, but leaving enough time to compensate. Experiments with these aircraft indicate that they only actually stall out below 70 knots.

This means other, less obvious, possible explanations have to be considered, even if— on moral, political, or personal grounds--we would prefer not to confront them. These include the possibility that the plane might have been disabled by a small bomb, by a canister of gas, or by an electro-magnetic pulse. The most salient feature of the crash is the loss of communication that occurred simultaneously with the loss of control. This is difficult to explain by other, less sinister, causes. Neither pilot error, mechanical problems nor difficult weather can explain it.

http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/WellstoneUnanswered.htm

[mhr]

45. Stall Speed Increases With Accumulated Wing Ice

So, if there was wing ice, the plane would stall at a higher speed than normal.

The stall warning horn could have gone off at the same moment the plane stalled.

Or alternately, the plane could have stalled before the horn ever made a sound.

Typically, if icing is a factor in an instrument approach, extra airspeed is carried for just this reason.

Further, the normal approach speed for this aircraft would probably be between 100 and 130 knots, significantly faster than reported.

As to loss of communications, I suspect that if you went into a spin in a King Air, you would have your hands full.

This is a violent Maneuver!

Communications would be the last thing on your mind.

[stickdog]

183. There WAS NO FUCKING ICE.

The temperature was over freezing below 5,000. There was a well observed inversion layer.

[mhr]

300. Then Why Did the NTSB List Icing As a Possible Contributing Factor?

eom

[stickdog]

304. Because anything's possible?

There was NO EVIDENCE of icing below 4,000 feet in Minnesota that entire day.

And the plane spent seven minutes at or below 4,000 BEFORE the co-pilot made the last "A-OK" report to ATC.

[TKP]

81. Stalls

I'm a General Aviation pilot. Stall speeds increase if there is ice on the wings, which if I'm not mistaken, was a possibility. Also, you've got to take into consideration pilot error, i.e. he was below the glide slope, he misread the approach plates, the plane got ahead of him, etc... Just because the stall horn sounds doesn't mean you have altitude to recover, and a stall in IMC conditions (instrument) complicates proper stall recovery. A loss of communication might mean an electrical failure, another strike against you in IMC conditions.

I'd wait for the NTSB report. They've done so many of these they know where to look for answers.

[Yupster]

100. My guess is the cause was

two or three reasons that came together to make a catastrophe. If it was a problem that happened all the time, plaes would be dropping like flies. The fact that it was a rare occurance means it probably happened because of a rare cause.

[stickdog]

184. And weather sure wasn't the major factor because the weather was just

just fine for dozens of planes a lot less weatherproof than a King Air A-100.

[stickdog]

181. The plane was more than 40 mph under the recommended approach speed!

The stall warning horn would have been blaring. There were two pilots.

The plane never got below stall speed.

All the pilots who simulated the flight -- even when loaded up with simulated ice THAT DID NOT EXIST AT 1 C -- were able to recover safely.

But thanks for your ignorant platitudes about a "moment's inattention."

[Minstrel Boy]

19. liberals and leftists are just "accident prone" I guess...

A pilot, Steve Filopovitch, took this photo ten miles from where Paul Wellstone's plane crashed, approximately 20 minutes before it happened. He said, "The temperature on the ground was pleasant with my estimation of visibility was 3 miles with a 500 to 1000 (foot) ceiling. There was no ground wind. Experienced pilot(s) could handle these conditions very easily."

Links to articles by Jim Fetzer re Wellstone's crash, plus rebutals:

http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/Wellstone_JimFetzer.html


Mike Ruppert reported "that the day after the crash, he received a message from a former CIA operative who has proven extremely reliable in the past and who is personally familiar with these kinds of assassinations, who told him, 'As I said earlier, having played ball (and still playing, in some respects) with this current crop of reinvigorated old white men, these clowns are nobody to screw with. There will be a few more strategic accidents, you can be certain of that.' Which is more than just a little disconcerting."
http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/fetzer0103.htm

[Padraig18]

24. General-aviation fatalities in 2002:

"...The number of persons killed in all aviation accidents dropped from 1,171 in 2001 to 618 in 2002. It should be noted that airline fatalities in 2001 accounted for a total of 531 deaths. The 2001 deaths included the September 11 terrorist attacks and the American Airlines flight 587 crash in November. There were no fatalities on scheduled passenger carriers in 2002. The number of general aviation fatalities increased slightly from 562 in 2001 to 576 in 2002...."

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2003/031002.htm

People die in plane crashes every day...

[VermontDem2004]

28. True

but it doesn't mean people can tamper with a plane to make it crash. Car accidents happen everyday but it doesn't mean someone can't fuck with the brakes or do something to cause a car to crash.

[Padraig18]

30. the opposite is also true

Just because it was PW doesn't mean it couldn't have been a tragic accident.

[VermontDem2004]

32. I am undecided

but I am just saying that you may say accidents happen everyday well I can say some accidents can be the result of someone tampering with the car/plane.

[Padraig18]

35. I don't disagree

I'm just saying that there's absolutely no proof (unless you count goofy conspiracy theories as proof) of any kind that it wasn't just a horrible, tragic accident. If and when there is, my mind could change. :hi:

[Corgigal]

106. OK how many congressmen or Senators

have died in car crashes in the past 10/15 years? Not to mention Wellstone's flight had two qualified pilots not one. You would think that should up your chances.

[Padraig18]

121. I don't know, tbh.

But as for the 2-pilot issue, my friend who's a pilot said, "Once you lose it in a flat spin, all you have on board are bodies."

[mhr]

37. When The Aircraft Crashed, The Engines Were Running And

There was fuel on board.

The investigation did not uncover any control surface malfunctions.

This leaves three possibilities.

1. Pilot Error, see earlier post
2. Pitot, Static system failure - airspeed failure
3. Sabotage of the airspeed system

One is highly likely, it happens everyday. Two, is possible but these systems are checked routinely. Three is possible but unlikely because there was no evidence to support this conclusion.

[stickdog]

185. There is no evidence to support any conclusion.

The plane was allowed to burn into cinders for about 10 hours. Little was recovered. No calls were made to ATC describing any trouble. And there was no CVR or FDR on the flight (supposedly).

If it was merely pilot error, it bordered on pilot incapacitation.

And the weather was just fine.

[mhr]

298. Aircraft Of This Type ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE CVR, CDR

CVR, CDR only applies to the airlines.

[stickdog]

311. You are correct that they are not required.

Why yell?

[Yupster]

101. That is true

No one will ever prove that here wasn't a conspiracy.

I blame the elusive homonid Bigfoot, and no one will ever prove that isn't correct either.

[Minstrel Boy]

34. "People die in plane crashes every day..."

but Congressmen and Senators don't. Though Democrats more frequently than Republicans. And the Senate's most prominent liberal, in a contest that could determine the balance of power?

Plane crashes are a favoured method of assassination. And precisely because they're relatively easy to pass off as accidents. Just look outside the US, where it seems much easier to accept political murder as standard operating procedure: Omar Torrijos in Panama, Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan.

Accidents happen, and they can be made to happen. And to think otherwise is foolhardy.

[Padraig18]

38. In the abscence of proof...

...it's rather 'goofy' to think it wasn't an accident, IMO.

[stickdog]

186. Why? Where is the proof that it was an accident?

If a plane hit the WTC, would you say the same thing?

Do you really believe that nobody in the entire world with the means to rig a small plane crash wanted Wellstone dead?

So why should we require proof to believe it was foul play, but require no proof whatsoever -- and not even any believable explanation -- to believe it was an accident?

[Padraig18]

222. *No* proof?

Umm... small plane, bad weather, marginal weather conditions, laws of physics and aerodynamics.

Hoofbeats.... ZEBRAS! :tinfoilhat:

[stickdog]

233. Highly safe plane, fine weather, unexplained off course turning,

unfathomably dangerous approach speed, two pilots and no emergency call, recent terrorism involving plane crashes, and a ridiculously unpopular Senator who had attempts against his life in Latin America, who was Rove's #1 adversary and who was about to win.

Hear hoofbeats -- think a predator is probably hunting.

[Padraig18]

239. Why do you persist in your denial about the weather.

It has been explained here repeatedly, in language a dull 3 year-old could understand, that the weather was *not* 'fine'--- it was, in plain English, 'crappy', and in pilot-ese 'marginal'.

[stickdog]

248. Above freezing, no wind, 3-4 miles visibility, trace fog.

The weather was marginal at Duluth.

It was just fine at Eveleth. I mean, Wellstone's pilot had a pilot coming from Eveleth convincing Wellstone the conditions were safe. A pilot hopped into a tiny one engine to go look for the crash site. No other pilots had any problems -- even at Duluth, where the visibility and cloud cover were far worse.

[Jakey]

266. You are simply FACTUALLY wrong....

about the weather at Eveleth and how it impacted the flight. The perameters you mention are irrelevant. The "ceiling" condition is the relevant data.

And as to the "tiny one engine" that took off to do a search, google "special VFR" and learn why that is conceivable.

[stickdog]

272. Yes, I failed to mention the one factor that COULD possibly have

impacted the flight and instead highlighted all the other weather factors that certainly could not, along with some anecdotal evidence that the cloud ceiling wasn't that bad either.

That doesn't make my post FACTUALLY wrong.

I'm merely presenting one side of this argument, with FACTUAL precision.

[Padraig18]

273. Oh no, he's *never* wrong

We're just stupid and Clark-loving BFEE wannabes. /sarcasm off

[stickdog]

276. Jakey is a fine steward of the facts. As for you,

the shoes look to be your size.

[mhr]

39. Maybe Democrats Perish In Aircraft Accidents More Often Because

they have to take chartered aircraft.

Republicans, on the other hand, can rely on their corporate contacts to ferry them anywhere.

Corporate flight crews and aircraft are typically very well trained and the aircraft are maintained meticulously.

I am sure there is a statistical correlation.

[Minstrel Boy]

41. Maybe, but Wellstone's King Air A100

is supposedly extremely reliable and has an excellent safety record.

[mhr]

51. That's Not The Point

He was flying with a commercial air charter service.

These are typically well run.

My experience is that corporate flight departments are run even better because they have more money to spend.

The safety record of the plane is meaningless if the maintenance is deficient in some way.

I have flown night freight in turboprops. Most people would not set one foot in these planes looking at their condition.

I have almost died because of faulty maintenance.

Departing out of New Orleans one winter night, the aircraft I flew did not respond properly to electric trim.

Down trim made the plane go up and up trim made the plane go down.

It took two of us to control the plane and about five minutes to figure out that the mechanics had wired the trim switch backwards.

Had there only been one pilot aboard that evening, I am pretty sure that a crash would have occurred.

Stuff happens up there. It's called the real world.

[Minstrel Boy]

62. Wellstone's plane had two pilots,

and the captain had passed a proficiency test just two days before the crash.

Stuff happens, I know. But I give credence to assassination theory given what I know of the "real world."

[mhr]

63. If You Want To Counter The Facts And Believe a Myth, Fine

eom

[stickdog]

193. If you want to believe something without any evidence or explantion, fine.

There wasn't any ice.

The plane was more than 40 mph under its recommended approach speed.

And it was still above stall speed on every radar return, but was below the stall warning horn speed for close to a minute.

And there's no evidence that the pilot ever even tried to recover Instead, the plane was turning left (a stall recovery attempt would have flown straight and a fly around would have turned right) and still slowing when it crashed -- with the engines still working.

[stickdog]

187. Murder happens, too.

It's called the real world.

[MrsMatt]

137. But the primary pilot

was sleep deprived, and the secondary pilot (believed to have been piloting at the time of the crash) was relatively inexperienced.

[Yupster]

102. I wonder if Republican congresscritters

take bigger planes (corporates), or don't fly to small towns as much.

[stickdog]

182. How many of these casualties were in King Air A-100s?

Yeah.

Just those on Wellstone's plane, right?

[Padraig18]

278. 15

And TEN--- t-e-n--- one-zero--- 10--- were on planes owned and operated by the same charter service PW used.

[stickdog]

290. 8 of these 15 died in the Wellstone crash.

So what you are saying is that there were more fatalities in Wellstone's crash than in the entire flight history of all King Air A-100's ever made.

[Padraig18]

302. Once again, 3rd-grade math wasn't wasted on you! n/t

[stickdog]

306. Too bad I can't say the same for you and Logic 101. (NT)

[Padraig18]

307. If I'd seen you use any, i might be wounded by your reply.

:tinfoilhat:

[BikeDeck]

36. Let us also not forget

Let us also not forget that if Wellstone had kept his promise to the people of Minnesota to only serve 2 terms in the Senate, he would be alive today.

[stickdog]

189. What the FUCK is this supposed to mean?

And if OJ's wife had just been faithful to him ...

[BikeDeck]

194. What does it mean?

Just pointing out that his breaking his promise to the people of Minnesota contributed to his death.

[stickdog]

199. Every event "contributes" to every subsequent event in this way.

When you die tragically, I'll take pleasure in pointing out that your last two posts "contributed" to that.

[BikeDeck]

201. no

my posting here will not contribute to my death.

If he had kept his promise he would not have been on that plane.

That is all I said. No more, no less.

[BikeDeck]

210. Never forget

that the leading cause of death is birth.

[birdman]

42. As is well-known but not commonly acknowledged

Knute Rockne, famed Notre Dame football coach, was
actually killed by Walker Neil Bush, great-uncle of the
current President. Angered at not getting a football
scholarship to Notre Dame Bush had to attend Yale where he
became a member of Skull and Bones. Bush had stalked Rockne
for years and finally got his revenge when he brought the famous
coaches plane down with a jerry-rigged short wave radio.



Knute, we hardly knew ye.

[stickdog]

195. Appeal to ridicule. (NT)

[Perky]

44. Oh dear God!!!!

Guys Listen up:

It is this sort of nonsense which the disaffected electorate rolls their eyes at. To subscribe the this conspiracy theory is to give credence to those who would aregure that Bill Clinton had Vice Foster killed and that there was some sort of crime that Clinton got away with on Whitewater.

We should not be playing their game.

[stickdog]

202. Yes. Because Vince Foster was killed mysteriously, we must never

even consider the possibility that people in power ever commit crimes.

[Padraig18]

224. Vince Foster blew his own brains out! n/t

[stickdog]

234. Yes. Because Kenneth Starr said so, it must be true. (NT)

[Padraig18]

237. No

Because the autopsy, the ballistic evidence and the *complete absence of any other evidence to the contrary* says so!

:tinfoilhat:

[stickdog]

261. Yep, just like Enron's J. Clifford Baxter ...

[Padraig18]

265. Let's not forget Elvis

I heard he had some dirt on #41. Overdose---yeah, sure. /sarcasm off :eyes:

[stickdog]

274. What about Elvis' death was less than self-evident? (NT)

[Padraig18]

279. What is not self-evident about the Wellstone crash? n/t

[stickdog]

293. Let's see.

how it happened

when it happened

to whom it happened

why it happened

[Padraig18]

295. let's see

how it happened

---Plane fall out of sky, go boom, people inside die.

when it happened

--- Almost exactly a year ago.

to whom it happened

---US Sen. Paul Wellstone, his wife Sheila, their daughter, 2 pilots and 3 other people.

why it happened

---To be determined by the NTSB.

[stickdog]

305. Yep. Because you say so.

All is clear.

Can I have my Kool-aid now?

[Padraig18]

308. Need it to wash down your Thorazine and Haldol? n/t

[Loyal]

47. You gotta be kidding

52% on here think it was a conspiracy?

[Perky]

49. Yankees suck

but yeah..... this is absolutely indidious.

[birdman]

53. Don't you realize that the Bushes assasinated

JFK
RFK
MLK
John Lennon
Abraham Lincoln
William McKinley
Julius Caesar


and I hate the fucking Yankees

[Yupster]

103. David Letterman joke

Some guy was clinically dead for a few minutes. When they revived him, the aksed him what it was like being dead. He said it was like listening to Phil Rizzuto during a rain delay.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bridget Burke]

61. ALL "Conspiracy Theories"?

Granted, the Wellstone crash may well have been an accident. People do get suspicious--especially considering who profited. But small planes do crash.

Seizing on one controversial event to laugh at ALL the people who believe ALL those silly conspiracy theories can be a method to discredit more believeable possibilties.

For example, what do you think about LIHOP?

[Pastiche423]

50. The Paul Wellstone crash was not an accident

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

"The Bushies despise Wellstone, who unlike most Senate Democrats has been fighting spirited battles against the new administration’s policies on everything from the environment to the tax cuts for the rich to military aid for the "Plan Colombia" drug war boondoggle. Other Democratic senators who face re-election contests in 2002 are, according to polls, more vulnerable than Wellstone. But the Bush camp has been focusing highest-level attention on "Plan Wellstone" — its project to silence progressive opposition."

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0424-07.htm

[mhr]

52. This Proves Nothing, It Is Only An Opinion

eom

[Pastiche423]

55. Was what happened to Paul

in Columbia only an opinion?

[Minstrel Boy]

54. Look at this from May 25, 2001:

Democratic Senator to be Assassinated Soon.
Assassination teams actively preparing hit

Within months, one of a selected group of democratic Senators, likely from a state with a Republican Governor, will meet an untimely death. The death will appear to be either a plane “accident” or by “natural causes,” - Whichever is most easily accomplished. The reality will in fact be that the Senator was one of a group of several Senators (Narrowed down into a group of “Selects”) targeted for assassination and was the one who was in the right place at the right time for the most convenient and clean "hit.”

You will see, within in the coming months, for absolutely certainty, the untimely death of at least one Democratic Senator, to "rebalance the scale". The private covert intelligence groups behind George Bush Sr. are extraordinarily well funded with petrochemical billions. They are deadly, work completely autonomously, in a terrorist formation identical to a terrorist organization, and are absolutely religiously dedicated to accomplishing their objectives. They will not rest until the Senate is under the control once again of the darkest force ever to seize control of the American Empire - The clandestine industrial / military / intelligence triad who is currently represented by George Bush Jr.

Few have the ability to comprehend the machinations of this dark force. It is beyond the scope of our “Journalists.” And only a few intellectuals still remain who will even dare to approach this grim reality. But is a reality. This triad will employ cells of ex-military/CIA "cutouts" whose mission will be to carefully eliminate one of a selected group of Democratic Senators. Once, one of the senators is eliminated the mission is complete, the tracks get covered, the evidence quickly cleaned up and the history books will once again inscribe a lie for all of posterity to suck on. And we will never know the true nature of our world and especially the dark force which now controls the world and the writing of those history books.

The mission is already underway and several "candidates" are being evaluated for extermination. The method of elimination is also being evaluated and will be narrowed down to one of several choices. One being a carefully planned "plane crash." Another is through the delivery of certain biological agents to the Senator.

http://www.lightscion.com/voxnyc/archives/senator-assassination.html

[mhr]

56. This Can Hardly Be Called a Serious Source

eom

[DealsGapRider]

57. Jesus Christ, people...

...yeah, and the Soviets shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 because rabidly anti-communist Congressman Lawrence McDonald was on board.

A grip. Get one, please.

[Selwynn]

58. I can't believe the results of poll - you guys are embarassing me

Does anyone have a single shred of non-circumstantial credible evidence to substantiate the claim that Wellstone's death was murder?

I cannot believe 54% (so far) believe in was a "conspiracy." You know the republicans also use aliens that shape shift and take on the form of Democrats like Joe Liebermann - ooooooooooooooh uh-huh! Think about it!

My uncle's cousin's nephew's brother's mom's barber's trash man's gynocoloist's pet turtle's sister-in-law actually SAW the alien take Joe's shape!

Next up: Face of Satan appears in smoke over Wellstone wreckage - read all about it in the Daily News. And if that comment offends you, its not more offensive than I found completely groundless conspiracy theories.

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Padraig18]

64. The RW already thinks most of us are wack jobs

And poll results like the one above make me wonder myself, on occasion... :tinfoilhat:

[DealsGapRider]

66. No shit.

[stickdog]

200. Wow! Not another "rational" coincidence theorist! (NT)

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

232. The new rules prevent me from making the reply your post deserves!

:grr:

[Minstrel Boy]

65. It's not just us. Members of Congress

have voiced suspicions, albeit anonymously. (Or, I suppose, you could simply believe Mike Ruppert's making this shit up.)

"FTW was able to receive comments on the crash from two Democratic members of the House of Representatives. Both, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stated that they believed that Wellstone had been murdered.

"One said, 'I don't think there's anyone on the Hill who doesn't suspect it. It's too convenient, too coincidental, too damned obvious. My guess is that some of the less courageous members of the party are thinking about becoming Republicans right now.'"
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110102_wellstone.html

[birdman]

69. Michael Ruppert

was fortunate that he found out his fiance was a CIA
agent sent to throw him off the track in his investigations.

Whew. That was a close one.



She made a great strawberry shortcake though.

[newsjunkie]

70. we have all wondered from time to time

because the timing and what it meant to us was so weird and suspicious. The day he died I cried for 2 days because I knew what it meant and the huge difference it would make to America. The world was going to be way better if they could've stayed here with us. They had BIG ideas and BIG plans....good ones for all. That Memorial for Paul STUNT the Rs pulled convinced me once and for all that ALL Repukes are heartless careless cruel stupid bastards that I for one will never believe or trust again with anything,and will not have sympathy for.

[Padraig18]

71. A fellow Minnesotan thinks otherwise

"Pilot wanted to cancel Wellstone's fatal flight
BY CHARLES LASZEWSKI, RICK LINSK and TOM WEBB
Pioneer Press

U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone was so nervous about the weather before takeoff on the morning of his fatal flight to Eveleth, Minn., that his pilot asked another pilot to reassure the senator that everything would be all right.

But Wellstone's pilot, Richard Conry, had himself expressed grave doubts about the weather that October morning — so much so that when he got his first weather briefing from the Federal Aviation Administration at 7:15 a.m., he wanted to cancel the flight.

"You know what, I don't think I'm going to take this flight," Conry told the weather briefer, according to a transcript of the conversation included in the National Transportation Safety Board's first major report on the Oct. 25 crash. The accident killed Wellstone; his wife, Sheila Wellstone; his daughter, Marcia Wellstone Markuson; and five others, including Conry.

The NTSB's "factual report" of the accident doesn't say what caused the twin-engine Beechcraft King Air A100 to crash just two miles southeast of the runway at Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport. The probable cause and contributing factors will be determined later by the safety panel's board members.

But the 2-inch-thick report does delve deeply into two issues that have concerned authorities since the investigation's early days: whether meteorological conditions on the morning of the crash could have caused killer ice to form on the plane's wings, and whether Conry and co-pilot Michael Guess — individually and as a team — were competent pilots.

U.S. Rep. James Oberstar of Chisholm, Minn., the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee and an expert on aviation, said he had been briefed on the NTSB report. After reading it, he said, he was concerned more than ever about icing and the flight crew's performance.

"It appears to me that it's ever more likely a combination of mechanical failures and pilot error — mechanical meaning icing, in which the crew loses control of the surfaces of the aircraft. And the history of the pilot — much of which was not available last fall, we didn't know all these facts about him — raises questions.

"I'm always hesitant to be critical of a pilot on a fatal crash because he's not here to defend himself," Oberstar said. "But you look at these pieces of information, and it begins to raise questions about competence in flight management." .... "

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/5236353.htm

[Minstrel Boy]

75. The weather cleared after the pilot made that statement

A striking example appeared in the Duluth News Tribune (22 February 2003), when it ran a story entitled, “Pilot almost called off Wellstone’s fatal flight”. According to St. Paul Pioneer Press reporters Charles Laszewski, Rich Linsk, and Tom Webb, who wrote the story, Senator Wellstone was uneasy about the weather, and his pilot, Richard Conry, “had expressed grave doubts about the weather on that October morning—so much so that, when he got his first weather briefing from the Federal Aviation Administration at 7:15 AM, he wanted to cancel the flight.”....

You would have to read 15 paragraphs to learn that, as the time for their scheduled 9:30 AM departure grew nearer, the weather had improved. In the 17th paragraph, we learn that, when Conry obtained an updated weather briefing around 8:30 AM, he received a new report that the wind at Eveleth was calm, visibility was three miles, light snow was falling, and the cloud ceiling was at 900 feet. “OK, that’s what I need”, Conry said. “At least, it’s above my minimums.” Also buried in the story is a report that other planes flying in the area earlier that morning had taken on some ice, “but nothing severe”. So when you read the story carefully, you discover that weather wasn’t a factor, after all.

Think about this, because it displays the power of newspaper reporters and editors to spin stories creating one impression or another. The headline, “Pilot almost called off Wellstone’s fatal flight” implies (a) that the weather was bad, (b) that the weather was probably responsible for the crash, and (c) that if Conry had only been more prudent, the crash would not have occurred. But when you actually read the story, it becomes obvious (a) that the weather was not bad, (b) that it could not have been responsible for the crash, and(c) that the pilot was very prudent, only proceeding when he had been reassured that the weather was fine. The impression created was the opposite of what the facts revealed! Read the story if you think I am making any of this up.

http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/0313Wellstone.htm

[Padraig18]

78. Why ignore what Oberman said?

???

[Minstrel Boy]

82. I was merely correcting the misperception

created by the pilot's quote regarding flight conditions, which ignored the fact he reversed his opinion, based on improved weather, more than an hour before departure.

[Padraig18]

84. There was no misperception

He *did* want to cancel the flight that morning. Sure, he changed his mind, when the weather conditions improved marginally--- and now PW is dead.

[stickdog]

257. Read the NTSB report. The pilot was talking about conditions in DULUTH

when he said he wasn't going to make the trip.

When Wellstone's pilot got the MUCH BETTER conditions in Eveleth, he had another pilot coming from Eveleth talk to Wellstone to convince the Senator that the flight was safe.

[Padraig18]

267. I bet the other pilot was in on the conspiracy

Pretty soon this conspiracy is going to have a cast of characters bigger than the NYC white pages. :eyes:

[stickdog]

280. Straw man.

I'm arguing that Wellstone's crash MAY OR MAY NOT have been caused by pilot incapacitation. Currently, it just seems like the most likely explanation to me.

Pilot incapacitation MAY OR MAY NOT have been caused by foul play.

Any putative foul play MAY OR MAY NOT have been a conspiracy.

Any putative conspiracy MAY OR MAY NOT have included the US federal government.

Contrast this to you, who unconvincingly argues that Wellstone's crash HAD TO BE an unexplained accident.

[Padraig18]

282. Wrong, my lil' buckaroo!

"...Contrast this to you, who unconvincingly argues that Wellstone's crash HAD TO BE an unexplained accident...."

My theory is that there is no *e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e* whatsoever to indicate that it is anythin OTHER than an accident, and you have provided BUPKUS in the way of said 'evidence to the contrary', besides your own paranoid rantings!

[9215]

337. Your whole purpose here is obvious

You just want to stop people from exploring this crash. You don't offer anything and diligently take the official line presented. I've watched this tit for tat for nearly a year now at differant topics. You and jakey and a couple of others come out of the blue when ever stickdog is present.

I just notified stickdog of the topic today and you guys show up too.


What branch of the intelligence community do you work for?

[Padraig18]

346. Get your facts straight

1.) I haven't been here for a year.

2.) I was posting in and to this topic long before your buddy.

3.) I'm a college student, not one of 'them'. *eerie, spooky, sinister music*

[birdman]

347. Using the conspiracy theory to justify the conspiracy theory

Anybody who doesn't believe the conspiracy theory
must be in on it.



Karl Rove is paying them in strawberries. I just know it.

[Padraig18]

349. Mmmm hmmm...

God forbid that anyone would suggest that an airplane flying in lousy, marginal weather would crash and kill *Paul Wellstone*; obviously, people like PW never die in tragic, yet thoroughly mundane ways--- they are always murdered by some insidous cabal... /sarcasm off

[Pastiche423]

72. Does anyone have a single shred

of non-circumstantial credible evidence to substantiate the claim that Wellstone's death was an accident?

[Padraig18]

73. That's nonsensical

You can't disprove a negative.

[birdman]

74. The burden of proof is on the conspiratorials

I swear that some of these people blame Karl Rove
and Bush if they get a flat tire.

It's just as nutty as the old Clinton death list
that the right used to e-mail one another.

[Padraig18]

76. Ain't that the truth? n/t

[Selwynn]

86. He means those accusing of a conspiracy must prove it.

The burden of proof is on those making the accusation. Care to shed anything other than speculative and circumstantial evidence?

[Padraig18]

88. They would, if they could

Sadly, the only items worthy of the name 'evidence' contradict their :tinfoilhat: theories...

[stickdog]

204. What is sad it that your mindset that all mysterious plane crashes MUST

be considered accidents unless PROVEN otherwise.

It's no wonder why plane crashes has been a preferred CIA method of assassination for a long time, now is it?

[Padraig18]

213. care to *prove* that statement? n/t

[stickdog]

215. It's never happened in Africa or Indonesia or the USSR.

Right?

[Padraig18]

225. Do you need the word 'proof' defined for you?

That does not constitute 'proof'; specifically, that is called 'anecdotal' evidence. get back to me when you understand what 'proof' means.

[stickdog]

235. Can you prove that you are really a Dean supporter? (NT)

[Pastiche423]

77. See post #58

[Padraig18]

80. Post #58 says:

"Does anyone have a single shred of non-circumstantial credible evidence to substantiate the claim that Wellstone's death was murder?

I cannot believe 54% (so far) believe in was a "conspiracy." You know the republicans also use aliens that shape shift and take on the form of Democrats like Joe Liebermann - ooooooooooooooh uh-huh! Think about it!

My uncle's cousin's nephew's brother's mom's barber's trash man's gynocoloist's pet turtle's sister-in-law actually SAW the alien take Joe's shape!

Next up: Face of Satan appears in smoke over Wellstone wreckage - read all about it in the Daily News. And if that comment offends you, its not more offensive than I found completely groundless conspiracy theories.

:tinfilhat::tinfilhat::tinfilhat::tinfilhat::tinfilhat: "

This helps your case HOW?

[Selwynn]

83. By pointing out truth in the midst of what I guess are a bunch of wackos

Seriously, these poll numbers are disturbingly irrational.

[Padraig18]

87. Yep

I'm ready to order some heavy-duty anti-psychotics to pass out around here... :tinfoilhat:

[VermontDem2004]

91. us wackos also know of a Salem Bin Laden

who mysteriously crashed in Texas in 1988 after Bush got in trouble with the BCCI.

[Padraig18]

94. OK

It was a fatal accident, so the FAA would have been involved. Link to their findings, please?

[Selwynn]

126. Dude they're in on it too don't you know?

EEEK!

[stickdog]

208. Appeal to ridicule (NT)

[stickdog]

207. Spoken like a true Clarkie

who is 100% certain that a General would never lie about anything.

[Selwynn]

89. LOL - learn what proving a negative means

Asking for evidence of a conspriacy is not a negative. You are asking for proof that something IS true, which is appropriate.

On the other hand, demanding proof that it was NOT a conspiracy is attempting to prove a negative and is not appropriate.

The burden of proof is always on the one making the accusation. You must prove that a consiracy occured.

[Selwynn]

90. Wait... am I misunderstanding you?

I'm reading your other posts and I can't tell if I'm msiunderstnading what you're saying.

[Padraig18]

93. Yes, you're misunderstanding me

My 'you can't disprove a negative' comment was just as you said--- they can't ask me to DIS-prove a conspiracy. :hi:

[Selwynn]

122. Well, in the words of Jack Nicholson....

aren't I the fucking asshole. :D

[stickdog]

209. Asking for proof it was an accident is NOT proving a negative.

Go back to logic school, Columbo.

[0rganism]

124. It's an OPINION POLL, not a fucking grand jury indictment

I don't have to have "non-circumstantial credible evidence" (a matter of YOUR opinion, BTW) in order to form an opinion of my own. (Incidentally, I've sat on a jury for a criminal trial that was ENTIRELY based on circumstantial indirect evidence.)

If you think Wellstone's crash was an accident, good for you. Some people here think otherwise. If you're embarrassed to be in a minority on this topic, you don't have to choose to associate with DU.

[stickdog]

188. Yet you believe it was an accident without any explanation.

How rational. :eyes:

[Jakey]

191. The "explanation" that matters....

will be presented shortly by the NTSB.

[stickdog]

211. Really?

When?

[Jakey]

212. It seems that I read...

12-14 months as a rule...perhaps the notoriety of this crash might add to that period...we'll see.

[JackRiddler]

92. The right question to ask, still theoretical

How probable are the following two events?

A small plane accident kills a frequent flyer.

A politician is assassinated, in a fashion made to look like an accident.

Both of these events have occurred in the past. In neither case can we state the probability of the event at a given time on a given flight with absolute precision, given the million-and-one variables: weather, pilot, type of plane, or (on the assassination side) the complications that might arise in the attempt, etc. etc.

The odds of an uncomfortable politician being assassinated are almost certainly comparable - I'd guess higher - than the odds of a frequent flyer dying in a plane accident, but how do we define "uncomfortable politician," uncomfortable to whom, is it really worth "their" time to get him, etc. etc.

Given the above self-evident considerations, ruling out either possibility in advance of study is obviously insupportable, and almost certainly the product of bias.

There is no neutral hypothesis in this case, just two possible explanations, with no reason to favor either in advance of looking at the facts.

We also need not adhere to a legal presumption of innocence, since we are not actually trying anyone in a court of law. We are engaging in a discussion, asking, logically: Is this an accident or murder? Both are known to happen.

But here is one difference: Accident research is primarily forensic research, with psychology playing a role in the moment-to-moment actions of the actors on the scene. Whereas assassinations are willed acts (i.e., the odds of someone *plotting* to assassinate someone are either zero or one hundred percent). The assassination hypothesis therefore has to consider more than the forensic remains, the weather, or the pilot's state. It must also consider historical precedents, timing, suspects, motives, means - sticky and unclear things, compared to a burnt-out wreck, but things that can and do exist!

Now look at the timing: an accident can happen on any flight, though weather and the pilot's shape changes the chances, etc.

If you were an enemy of Wellstone who wanted him dead and his political legacy undone, however, you would almost certainly pick any day up until the very day he died - the last day before his name would have stayed on the ballot.

He had become the leader of the antiwar movement in the Senate. In the months that followed his death, he would have likely arisen as the leader of the nationwide opposition to Bush and the war.

Again, anyone who automatically rules out either hypothesis (or calls for "proof" before acknowledging that both hypotheses are valid for study) is either an idiot or in denial about how corrupt any nation can be, including the United States.

A successful assassination would obviously aim to make it difficult to prove. (If the plane was jammed electronically from the ground, you can forget about proving jack!)

Interesting that the head NTSC investigator on the Wellstone case, Carol Carmody, lists 10 years of work at the CIA on her resume.

But I forgot, the CIA are the good guys now, working hard to protect us from WMDs and free us of Bush. No one involved with them would have a general interest to sweep uncomfortable facts under the rug.

Anyway, it is ridiculous to attack anyone for having their obvious suspicions about the Wellstone case. Wondering about the chances that a suspicious death was an assassination on a message board should not qualify you for insults, doubts about your sanity or name-calling.

[Minstrel Boy]

99. excellent post

You've redeemed the thread, Jack. Well done! :toast:

[mhr]

115. Must Take Eception - As a Pilot, There is No Credible Evidence

That the plane was sabotaged or that the pilots were incapacitated.

The comment about jamming does not hold up because the wreckage revealed no evidence of any device to receive such a signal.

If the argument is that navigation signals were jammed, once again that does not hold water because missed instrument approach procedures demand a missed approach if the pilot cannot acquire the runway visually once clearing the clouds.

The accident does suggest pilot error or a yet to be undetected malfunction.

If you want to go down the conspiracy path, there is an equally dubious yet never mentioned option. The plane was crashed by private individuals not government agents.

I honestly don't think this could be kept a secret otherwise.

[Minstrel Boy]

132. You're answering as a pilot,

and I appreciate the experience you bring to the discussion, but as Jack said, "The assassination hypothesis therefore has to consider more than the forensic remains, the weather, or the pilot's state. It must also consider historical precedents, timing, suspects, motives, means - sticky and unclear things, compared to a burnt-out wreck, but things that can and do exist."

[stickdog]

214. They set up a stronger VOR beacon in the woods to draw the plane

off course. Then they hit the pilots with something incapacitating (microwaves?).

Then they made sure the remains and debris were burning, went back to their "service truck" and drove away.

[Padraig18]

218. *proof*?

:tinfoilhat:

[stickdog]

236. There is no proof either way. I was just countering the claim that

no possible conspiracy explanations make sense.

Let's see the proof that it was an accident.

In fact, let's just see a reasonable explanation for an accident.

[Padraig18]

245. In the absence of any factual evidence of this 'theory'

Your 'countering' isn't--- it's just plain absurd.

[stickdog]

Like your accident theory? (NT)

[Selwynn]

123. The only thing that is ridiculous around here....

Is continuing to hype us theories back with zero credible evidence.

[stickdog]

216. Like the accident theory you're hyping? (NT)

[Skinner]

98. This is pretty embarrassing.

I can only hope that the freepers have freeped this poll.

C'mon people. Let's not get too paranoid here.

[TKP]

108. Admin.

>C'mon people. Let's not get too paranoid here.

Sir, I will grant you that. Paranoid may be too light a sentence. Being new here, I'm still hoding out hope. But some of these things like this and saying the USA is fascist and so forth quite frankly worrys me. And to this point, I've noticed this type of attitude seemingly permiates this place. I know you said this is a BIG tent, but the tent is in areas I never imagined. Stuff like this sounds like Lu-Lu Land, and it won't sell on Main Street, USA.

[VermontDem2004]

110. Yes we are a bunch a kooks

who live in Lu-Lu land, we are not in touch in reality and won't be unless we say Bush is a great leader. In reality homeland gestapo act was step 1 into facism, the patriot act was only step 2(uh-oh crazy talk) into facism, patriot act II will be step 3 if we can stop it from being passed.

[theemu]

145. Godwin's Law

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

[Must_B_Free]

196. whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost

Just saw the Pianist last night.

Why do people have such a tough time accpeting that men like to mass forces and compete to wipe out their competitors.

Forget the human costs, those can easily be ignored by the leaders driving the whole thing.

Why do people think that much of man that this "can't happen again"?

Look at what we just did to Afganistan and Iraq - and you say "Lets not get paranoid"?

You people need to wake up and smell the coffee - the patterns of history are right in front for all to see - why would you believe that the pattern has stopped?

[Selwynn]

125. wait a minute... the US *is* fascist :)

Some one has the FDR quote as their signature: "The liberty of a Democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any controlling private power."

Sounds like a country I know that will remain nameless...

[goobergunch]

117. I concur.

The rate of Senators dying in office is relatively high.

From 1989-2002:

Sen. Spark Matsunka (D-HI) (1990)
Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) (1991)
Sen. John Chafee (R-RI) (1999)
Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-GA) (2000)
Gov. Mel Carnahan (D-MO) (2000) <--- included because his death created a vacancy in the Senate
Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) (2002)

[AquariDem]

118. No different than freeps blaming Clinton

for every single undesirable thing that happens in this country. Sheesh.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

169. Not really because there is no definitive proof either way

for the record I chose undecided.

[stickdog]

217. Appeal to authority (NT)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

104. He was basically killed by McGaa...he wouldn't have had to work so hard

to save his seat had a GREEN not run against the most liberal Dem in the senate.

[Loyal]

105. I agree

The damned Greens will target every Dem no matter how liberal they are. To them it is all about power, and building their party up so they can rule the world. It makes me sick, and I hope that we tighten down the ballot access laws even more. I hope that we can increase petition requirements for ballot access so that the Greens will have to work harder to earn their spot on the ballot.

[Cheswick2.0]

107. Hi <waves>

funny post and somewhat true.

[onebigbadwulf]

111. Heres why

I only think it was no accident because almost the exact same thing happened to another democrat recently.

[in_cog_ni_to]

113. Funny how they are

Democrats...doncha think? The repukes know that most people will roll their eyes ...like this...:eyes: at the conspiracy thing. IT'S a PERFECT crime. Those loony libs at it again....sluthing where there's nothing to sluthe....

ya, uh huh, ok, whatever you say, okee dokee....those planes with Democrats just happened to crash right before their elections. WHY should we be suspicious? SILLY us!

[VermontDem2004]

114. Yes. Silly us!

[in_cog_ni_to]

112. PLEASE read this article

posted on this thread....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=561447

For those who think small aircraft crashes that just "accidentally" happen when the BFEE are around, have a read. Just ONE more plane down.....guess who was in office? Guess who was good friends with Enron's Ken Lay? Guess who died in the plane. Guess WHY they died. Then read on about all the dead Tanzanians. Very enlightening stuff by Greg Palast.....a GREAT investigative journalist who better stay off of small aircraft. :(

[Minstrel Boy]

119. Gary Caradori

was the chief investigator of the Nebraska legislature's Franklin committee. He'd uncovered testimony and evidence of a child prostitution ring which implicated senior Republicans in the state and in Washington with the knowledge of VP Bush, and operated with the protection of the FBI and the CIA (call boys being used to ensnare VIPS for the purposes of blackmail), all tied to a S&L which was apparently laundering money for Iran/Contra.

Caradori called the committee chief to say he had the smoking gun. "We've got them! There's no way they can get out of it now!" Returning from Chicago with evidence, his small plane broke up midair. A farmer witnessed a flash of light and heard an explosion. The wreckage was examined at a military base and ruled an accident. His briefcase was never recovered.

What's this to do with Wellstone?

Well, maybe Caradori's crash was an accident, too. Cliff Baxter may have killed himself with rat shot. Maybe Bush even came to be president by mere happenstance. Perhaps he really was as surprised as we were by 9/11, and it was just good fortune that he was taking Cipro before the Anthrax letters were mailed. Maybe they're all just happy accidents for Bush and his crowd.

Myself, I think the times demand the prudence of assuming otherwise.

[in_cog_ni_to]

130. I had never heard that story

holy crap! The list goes on and on and on...I have to add Hatfield, the Author of "Fortunate Son", to the list of "accidents" close to the BFEE. I don't believe he committed suicide. He was THREATENED by a Bush employee, not to write the book. They threatened Hatfield's family too. I don't believe for a minute that his death was due to suicide. JMCPO

[gully]

120. Kick

:kick:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

127. Thanks for This Poll!

This gets added to my standard line about DU being "50% self-described socialists, 40% self-described revolutionaries," for those people who foolishly try to claim that DU is somehow representative of either America or the Democratic Party.

DTH

[InkAddict]

128. Double or nothing

Thought they'd get Teddy too but the top payoff got foiled when the imaginary player failed to deposit the maximum bet into the slot, er airplane. Isn't everyone always "running late?" Mother Nature provided a neat cover, and a wee bitty jackpot keeps the players playin'so the house wins!

[NewJerseyDem]

129. This is ridiculous

Nobody has any evidence that Wellstone's death was anything except an unfortunate accident. It is really outrageous to accuse people of murder without having any proof at all.

Also, the Bush Administration, even if they did kill their political opponents (which I don't think is the case), wouldn't want to kill Paul Wellstone. Everyone should at least admit that the race was quite close in Minnesota. I understand that Wellstone may have been leading slightly but I definitely know it was close and Coleman may have won anyway. After Wellstone's death the race should have gone easily to the democrats (just look at Carnahan in Missouri). If it weren't for the idiots at the "memorial service", Mondale would have won. The republicans wouldn't want to kill Wellstone because it would backfire.

And, wouldn't you think that Bush would be a little worried that people would find out? If the public became aware of this murder then he would be sent to prison and the it would make Watergate look like a tiny scandal. The republican party would collapse and democrats would be in power for decades. I don't think Bush would take the risk.

I don't really think that Bush is evil. I know I'm probably about the only one here that thinks that but I have no reason to think that he is a horrible person. I think that he is wrong, perhaps stupid and even somewhat mean, but I don't necessarily think that he likes going around killing people. Maybe he does, but I seriously doubt it.

These accusations of murder are just paranoia and irrational anger.

[in_cog_ni_to]

131. Did you read Al Franken's book

yet? He gives a totally different account of that Memorial service for Wellstone. It's quite different from what Bush's media reported and Al Franken was THERE! Maybe you should read it? It was NOT at all the way you saw it on TV. Trust me.

Why would Bush be concerned about anyone learning ANYTHING he has done since he's been in office? The media is kissing his ass and are completely out of touch with journalistic ethics....they have no ethics anymore. They won't expose a damn thing he does because they've all been threatened by the WH. This crap won't end until he's gone!

Bush is evil alright...no-one will ever convince me otherwise.

[9215]

147. How long you been on the board?

[Selwynn]

158. Irrelevant - if you have credible evidence, post it now.

Not speculation, not plausibility; hard, concrete evidence.

[Minstrel Boy]

162. "hard concrete evidence"?

Do you hold everything to such a standard before you're ready to form an opinion as to what criminals in high office are capable of? Does "plausible denial" mean anything to you?

Did you read about the FBI's suspiciously early arrival on the scene? The lack of black boxes? The oddly burning fuselage and the blue smoke?

Do you know his life was endangered in Colombia by a runway bomb? His plane "accidentally" sprayed with herbicide?

Do you know what kind of enemies he had made? Do you accept how fortuitous his death was to them?

Do you know weather was not a factor? And catastrophic mechanical failure was extremely unlikely?

"Aviation research meteorologist Ben Bernstein, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Minnesota Public Radio that his analysis for the NTSB concluded icing was not likely a major problem at the time the plane crashed.

"'There's no way for us to know for certain how severe the conditions may have been, but looking at the data we did look at, it didn't appear to be a particularly severe situation,' according to Bernstein. If heavy ice wasn't a factor, could there have been a mechanical catastrophe?

"Although fire destroyed much of the aircraft, the NTSB does know the plane was apparently in good shape just hours before its last flight.

"'I'm confident that when I left the aircraft that to the best of my knowledge that airplane was in fine working order,' says Jason Rivera, who piloted the same King Air on a round trip to North Dakota which ended at the St. Paul Airport around 7 p.m. the evening before the crash."
http://news.mpr.org/features/2003/03/03_zdechlikm_wellstone/

Perhaps it was the power of White House prayer that brought down the plane? :shrug:

[Selwynn]

416. Yes. I do hold everything to the standard of credible evidence....

because making conclusions on nothing but circumstantial speculation is the height of stupidity.

[stickdog]

238. Please post your hard, concrete evidence that Wellstone's plane crashed

accidentally.

[Selwynn]

417. The burden of proof is on you to prove a conspriacy.

[stickdog]

423. Bullshit. We are discussing two competing speculative theories.

Therefore, the burden of proof is equaivalent. And you haven't met the barest threshhold.

[bitchkitty]

170. Wait a minute -

I don't really think that Bush is evil. I know I'm probably about the only one here that thinks that but I have no reason to think that he is a horrible person. I think that he is wrong, perhaps stupid and even somewhat mean, but I don't necessarily think that he likes going around killing people. Maybe he does, but I seriously doubt it.

We're talking about a man who has sent and is sending hundreds of young men and women to their deaths? Which is worse - intentionally doing this for the sheer joy of doing it, simply because one's character is evil, or doing it for Halliburton, and being indifferent to the deaths of these people? To me, the latter is the epitome of evil.

He might not be cackling and rubbing his hands together in glee, but he more than fits the definition of true evil. And I don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that.

edited for missing phrase

[JackRiddler]

275. your false assumptions, not mine...

you make it sound as though the skeptics here believe an assassination would be the result a top-down order, involving Bush himself as evil mastermind. But that kind of micromanagement of government crime, direct from the top, went out with Nixon, for obvious reasons. That is not how it works in a well-run mafia, where underlings can figure out for themselves what would be best for the cause. Many are the true believers and opportunist operatives, scattered in countless holes and covers, who work autonomously for the success of the overall project. I expect that to Bush himself, or to Rove for that matter, the possible murder of Wellstone came as a pleasant surprise.

Your second false assumption, at least with regard to my posts, is that I have accused anyone. I have not. This is not a trial. There is no need for a presumption of innocence. I am merely keeping an open mind about the two possible explanations for Wellstone's death. It might have been an accident, but given the timing and the history of suspiciousl small-plane crashes murder seems to me the more plausible explanation. Certainly I can imagine a lot of people were happy at the news of his elimination, but I don't have the evidence to accuse any particular one, and if it was murder then the murderers would have intended for it to work out exactly that way.

I would also expect that the odds of such a murder succeeding would be excellent, nearly certain, given that so far in the United States, murders of this type have almost always succeeded, even when done in painfully obvious fashion (see Kennedy). In part this is because of the logical fallacy under which certain people here also seem to suffer, that there is a neutral hypothesis in this case. There is not. There are two possible explanations and no reason for anyone posting here to be certain of either.

[Zhade]

345. This might sway your opinion on that...

Evil? Maybe, maybe not. Depraved? You bet. Read the underlined portion:

[Minstrel Boy]

133. An FBI team was

securing the perimiter, and witnessed by Eveleth-Virginia airport personnel, no more than 45 minutes after the crash was confirmed. The FBI had not been notified of a crash. The agents were from Minneapolis/St Paul, not the closer Duluth. The FBI has since been evasive about the arrival of the team, even moving the time back to 3:30.

Since the FBI contingent came from Minneapolis, it must have departed no later than 9:30 AM to make it to Duluth around 10:50 AM and arrive at the scene by noon. Remarkable, considering the crash only occurred at 10:20 and was verified at 11:00. So they were heading north to cover a crash that had yet to occur at approximately the same time that plane was taking off. And again, the FBI had not been notified of a crash.

The aircraft used by Wellstone is often equipped with black boxes. None were said to have been recovered.

The fuselage burned for hours emitting blue smoke. The aircraft's kerosene fuel, which was stored in tanks in its wings, should have emitted thick, black smoke instead. Why was the fuselage burning rather than the wings, especially when the wings were found separated from the fuselage?

The NTSB investigator was a 10-year veteran of the CIA.

The crash occured on the last day Wellstone's name could be removed from the ballot.

[in_cog_ni_to]

136. omg. n/t

[Minstrel Boy]

171. more on the FBI's arrival:

According to Rick Wahlberg, Sheriff of St. Louis County, a team of FBI agents were quickly on the crash site at about noon, less than an hour after Ulman and the chief had first located the site and found a way to access the wreck. This FBI team had come from the distant Twin Cities in record time!

American Free Press asked Ulman if he had contacted the FBI to inform them of the location. He said he had not spoken with the bureau at any time. Asked how the FBI got to the site so quickly, Ulman said that he assumed they had come from Duluth.

AFP contacted the Duluth office of the FBI and was told that the team of "recovery" agents had NOT come from Duluth, but had travelled from the FBI office in Minneapolis, some 150 nautical miles south, or 40 minutes flying time.

The FBI deserves to congratulated for its speed in responding to the crash of Wellstone's plane in the distant north woods of Minnesota's Iron Range. A FBI evidence "recovery" team was at the crash site at around 12 noon, a mere 45 minutes after the crash site had been located by Gary Ulman and the local fire chief.

The FBI agents were then able to secure the perimeter and examine the site for some 8 hours before the NTSB agents arrived at 20:20 (8:20 p.m.) and poked about in the darkness. The FBI deserves credit for being "right on the spot!"
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=265

[Minstrel Boy]

327. yoo hoo, coincidence theorists - up here.

Anyone care to take a shot at explaining how an FBI recovery team from Minneapolis arrived on the scene within 45 minutes of the crash having been located, though Minneapolis is a 40-minute flight away, and despite the FBI's not having been notified about a crash? They secured the perimeter and had the site to themselves for eight hours before the arrival of the NTSB. No red flags here?

[9215]

334. HOT!!! FBI nailed for stealing evidence from WTC crime scene!!

Minneapolis Emergency Response team that looked at Wellstone's crash was accused of stealing evidence from the WTC!!!!!!

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=271

Agents from the FBI’s Minneapolis Evidence Response Team have been accused of stealing evidence from the site of the World Trade Center, where they had been sent to investigate. The stolen evidence was a valuable Tiffany crystal paperweight taken from a WTC evidence bag. .........
........Turner is the second Minneapolis agent to accuse bureau personnel of wrongdoing. Earlier this year, FBI Agent Coleen Rowley accused officials at FBI headquarters of mishandling information developed in Minneapolis concerning 9/11 suspect Zacharias Moussaoui........

[Minstrel Boy]

338. good catch!

And from the same article, more on the unusually-coloured smoke and the intense fire which consumed the fuselage, though the wings, containing the fuel tanks, had separated:

Gary Ulman, professional pilot and assistant manager of the Eveleth airport, heard radio reports that a plane was missing and took off about 10:55 to look. Ulman told AFP that while he saw “light bluish-grayish smoke” coming up from the trees 2.1 miles south of the airport, he didn’t think that it could be the plane because “that was way too far off course.”

AFP asked Ulman several times to clarify the color of the smoke because his description of “light blue” smoke coming from the crash site is different from the expected thick black smoke that is usually seen coming from fires in which aviation fuel is the primary substance burning.

Ulman flew over the smoke and told AFP that he saw a “hot and intense fire” consuming the plane’s fuselage on the ground. He returned to the airport and took the local fire chief up to survey the crash site and determine how to access the wreck from the ground. Ulman told AFP that on this flight, at about 11:15 a.m., he saw that the burning fuselage had nearly “disintegrated.” He said the plane’s tail and wings had been detached from the body of the plane. It is important to note that the King Air’s fuel tanks are located in the wings of the plane; there is no fuel tank in the fuselage.

[9215]

359. This topic is a clusterfuck!

I tell you, the tit for tat exchanges on this topic have ruined it. There is alot of good information here, but it is hard to see in the morass.

There was discussion at some time since this crash about the intense fire that just conveniently destroyed material evidence. But this Emergency Response Team, who they were, how they were assigned, etc. is what got me. If they jumped the gun on heading for the crash site then pre-knowledge by someone is almost a certainty. They wanted to get there first to keep prying eyes from finding out the truth.

The process of this needs clarification. Who got the call at the desk, where did the call come from, was this normal procedure, etc.

[dflprincess]

139. From: "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast

Page 117 (paperback edition)

"On April 19, 1980, Jacob "Jake" Horton, senior vice president of Southern Company's Gulf Power unit, boarded the company plane to confront his board of directors over the company's accounting games and illegal payments to local politicians. Minutes after take off, the plane exploded."

Just another lucky coincidence for the bad guys...No one would sabotage a plane. How can anyone even suggest such a thing? (sarcasm on)

[RBHam]

140. In the end, it's a "gut" feeling

My gut tells me that Wellstone's death was just another in a long line of the Military Industrial Complex's Black Operations.

A half century devoted to the subjugation of true Democracy in favour of Corporate Fascism. These covert Black Ops go hand in hand with the overt Culture War that has been declared on progressives, liberals and libertarians alike.

Unfortunately, since the evidence for these crimes are generally buried, purged or destroyed through the old shell game of "National Security" and whether or not such revelations are "in the nation's interest" - it's very unlikely that there will ever be an accounting.

Crime does indeed pay. And well.

http://www.assassinationscience.com/

http://www.assassinationscience.com/PaulWellstone.pdf

[Skip Intro]

141. But the authorities ruled out foul play, and they wouldn't lie.

Just what was the official cause of the crash? Last I heard, it was changed from weather (after radar eliminated the "icing" story) and changed to pilot error. Hard to check that one, eh?

The bush regime is truthful, and they all know they work as our representatives at our pleasure.

THAT is rediculous.

The 2000 selection, 9*11, the 2002 selection - including Wellstone's murder, etc...

Those are just a few tips of iceburgs encountered by the USS America in the last two and a half years. The timing, the end result, all give the bush gang an unprecedented, and otherwise impossible advantage.

To me, the official story of 2000 and 9*11 are totally bunk. Believe what you see and hear and feel on a gut level, not what you're told. Wellstone was the only, if memory serves (which is hard, because its just been one opportune tragedy after another since Dec 2000 - hard as hell to keep track), but I believe Wellstone was one of the few, if not the only Senator to openly oppose bush's rush to invade Iraq. And he was climbing in the polls, leading Coleman. He dies, the spin machine kicks into high gear re: his memorial and what happens? bushco now rule the Senate (tho the GA backup helped as well).

To paraphrase some evil repuke, whose name I've thankfully forgotten, in order to believe the official story on this and many major events with political repercussions, you almost have to disavow your own senses and instincts.

As far as the Wellstone "accident" - I knew, as soon as I first got news of it, from DU and MSNBC, I knew that he had been murdered. Knew it in my bones. Still believe it completely. Its just too perfect for the bush regime, just too perfect after so many other too perfect "tragedies".

Why ridicule those who can smell the bs? Thankfully more here than not, imho. There are dots begging to be connected. The first question should always be - "who benifits?"

Imho.

[GOPBasher]

143. I said undecided, though I lean towards "planned"

I don't want to convict them yet, though it seems like a remarkable coincidence that liberals keep dying in plane crashes.

[quaker bill]

144. I really do not know

That being aside, it would be well advised on any basis for democratic candidates to just stay out of small aircraft. We seem to have trouble with them. Perhaps our guys don't know how to pick dependable aircraft... It is however quite clear that roo much can go "wrong" with them.

[9215]

146. Wellstone was a serious threat to Halliburton/Dresser .

From:
<http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:uB2IDWMw-FUC:wellstone.senate.gov/asbestos.htm>
April 18, 2000
Wellstone Stands With Steelworkers in Opposing Asbestos Legislation
Bills Before Congress Would Rob Victims of Their Basic Rights
(Eveleth, MN) --Senator Paul Wellstone, joining steelworkers in Eveleth today, announced his opposition to a proposed settlement which would prevent workers afflicted with asbestos-related illnesses from collecting the compensation they deserve. Wellstone said legislation before Congress, if passed, would deprive workers of their basic right to receive just compensation for illnesses they unknowingly contracted while working in factories polluted with asbestos.

"This legislation is a slap in the face to steelworkers and other Minnesotans who struggle to put a roof over their families' heads and put food on the table; never mind pay high medical bills for diseases they contracted for doing nothing more than putting in an honest day's work," Wellstone said. "It would rob them of their right to just compensation, it would rob them of their right to see justice served on those responsible for making them sick, and it would rob them of their right to get their lives back on track. I will do everything I can to honor the labor of these workers, and friends like Bruce Vento, by fighting this legislation in the Senate."

Here the SOB's decide that letting people be exposed to asbestos is worth the "price".

White House nixed asbestos warning: link to article of 12/29/02 : "White House thwarted asbestos- insulation warning": http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134604765_asbestos29.html
snip
"WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But the White House intervened at the last minute, and the warning never has been issued.
The agency's refusal to share its knowledge of what is believed to be a widespread health risk has been criticized by a former EPA administrator under two Republican presidents, a Democratic U.S. senator and physicians and scientists who have treated victims of the contamination. "

Before Cheney was VP the Seattle Post Intelligencer ran an article (August 4, 2000) " Cheney's Firm Backed Bill to Limit Asbestos Liability" :
"Dick Cheney and the giant energy company he will leave to run for vice president have contributed more than $150,000 to members of Congress who sponsored legislation that would limit the ability of workers to sue companies for asbestos exposure. "

Was the WH stopping the announcement a quid pro quo for past favors?

Article can be viewed at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/080400-02.htm

<http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102011.asp?cp1=1>
Murray promises to renew push for asbestos warnings
By ROBERT MCCLURE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Dec. 30 - After revelations that the Bush administration squelched public health warnings about a widely used form of insulation that contains cancer-causing asbestos, Sen. Patty Murray vowed yesterday to renew her fight for a public education campaign. Murray, D-Wash., said she will demand an explanation this week for why warnings planned last spring by the Environmental Protection Agency were called off at the last minute by high-ranking Bush administration officials.

Internal EPA documents show that about 15 million to 35 million of the nation's approximately 105 million households contain a brand of insulation known as Zonolite. Mined for decades in Libby, Mont., Zonolite contains a particularly lethal form of asbestos known as tremolite. "I just find it astounding that when this kind of information is available that can save people's lives, that this administration has decided to keep that secret and not let people know," Murray said. "Here's a health risk we can do something about."
Murray's co-sponsor, Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., died in October in a plane crash.

W.R. Grace says the insulation is safe, and wrote a letter to the EPA in April insisting that no health warnings are necessary.

In addition to its use in insulation, the brownish-pink vermiculite was contained in garden products, cement mixtures and many other products. One of those products was as fireproofing in ceiling tiles used widely in schools and federal office buildings. Helping manufacture those tiles as a side job while in college likely gave Brian Harvey of Marysville mesothelioma, a disease caused only by exposure to asbestos.

Harvey criticized the Bush administration's decision to pull the public health warning. "I have a real problem with that," Harvey said. "That I consider unforgivable."
"At the top levels of the Bush administration, they are maintaining this cloak of secrecy that I can't imagine the people who I've worked with at the EPA are very happy about," Murray said. "Hopefully, the public will start crying out for Congress and the administration to do something about this.

Note: Then the Right-Wing attack on Patty Murray for being an OBL "symp" when she spoke to a class. Timed well with Murray's attack on Trent Lott and her renewed interest in the WH nixing the asbestos warning.

One coincidence, two coincidence, three coincidence....four.....please don't tell me it's a coincidence anymore.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

148. The suspicion that it was an assassination

is definitely bubbling under the surface and will not go away.

I was living in Oregon when the crash happened, and people who knew I was from Minnesota would mention the crash to me and then ask almost surreptiously,"Do you think it was really an accident?"

The last time this happened was when I went to visit my 92-year-old great aunt. We were bewailing the Bush administration (she's a senior activist who has worked on health care issues), and she expressed the wish that Wellstone were still around. Then she added, "I don't think that crash was an accident."

As a mystery fan, I find motive, means, and opportunity in the Wellstone case, but I'm not any kind of an aviation expert, so I can't say for sure that the plane was sabotaged. But my gut feelings won't let me rule out the possibility, especially given the timing. I would not have had these suspicions if the crash had occurred in the summer of 2002, or if Wellstone had died of a some medical condition such as a heart attack.

But the only people who really know what happened (unless it was an assassination) are dead, so unless someone fesses up, we will be arguing this question for years to come.

[9215]

149. "Who is this chickenshit"? Poppy on Wellstone

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1025.html

[srpantalonas]

150. incredibly heartbreaking.

[Minstrel Boy]

151. kicking

this interesting thread for morning people.

[9215]

152. "Paul Wellstone is a hunted man"

Wellstone was a hunted man (John Nichols)http://www.disinfo.com/pages/news/id2840/pg1/

"Paul Wellstone, Fighter
originally posted May 9, 2002
Paul Wellstone is a hunted man. Minnesota's senior senator is not just another Democrat on White House political czar Karl Rove's target list, in an election year when the Senate balance of power could be decided by the voters of a single state. Rather, getting rid of Wellstone is a passion for Rove, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the special-interest lobbies that fund the most sophisticated political operation ever assembled by a presidential administration. "There are people in the White House who wake up in the morning thinking about how they will defeat Paul Wellstone," a senior Republican aide confides. "This one is political and personal for them."
That has made it political and personal for Wellstone. The man who decided to abandon a self-imposed two-term limit on his Senate service at least in part because of his determination to block Bush's conservative agenda wears the target with pride. At a moment when most Democrats are still trying to figure out how to challenge a popular President, the former college wrestler is leaping into the ring. Wellstone is not running for cover; he is running to deliver a message about politics in a state and a nation that he believes to be far more progressive than the readers of political tea leaves in Washington could begin to imagine.

[9215]

173. and Rove handpicked Wellstone's opponent

Norm Coleman, and Wellstone was leading 47%--to 41% and the lead was growing.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=271

.......The senate race in Minnesota was seen as crucial for the White House. Bush’s political director Karl Rove is said to have personally selected Coleman to challenge Wellstone in the November 5 election. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney frequently visited Minnesota to support Coleman.......

[amazona]

153. i'm satisfied they were murdered

The timing was too convenient, and the lies about the cause too quick on the draw, and when I checked the weather report at the site for the time/date in question, it was clear and above freezing, while it was described as foggy and below freezing on the news. There would be no motive to put out false weather reports and be ready with a false story if it wasn't a murder.


just common sense

[birdman]

154. So then all the news people

who described the weather were all a part of the conspiracy
and they've all kept silent.

There was frost on my strawberries.

[9215]

157. Good question

I don't have the facts on the weather of that day in that locale, but there was a rush to say the cause of the accident was the weather. It would be nice to know exactly what the weather was and how that actual weather diverged from the media take.

[Minstrel Boy]

159. Wolf Blitzer kept stressing weather; reporter on the scene did not:

Reporter: "There is no evidence that weather had anything to do with the crash"
Blizter: "But the plane was flying into some sort of ice storm, was it not?"
Reporter: "There is no evidence that the weather had anything to do with the crash."
CNN then immediately cut away from the on-scene reporter — permanently. A crawl along the bottom of the screen was observed to run just once or twice that stated: "Weather not a factor in crash." Yet CNN commentators continued to imply that the crash was weather-related.
http://www.unknownnews.net/cdd1120.html

[9215]

161. Thanks, Please see my post #160

That the CIA has control of the Media is not a question in my mind. I'd just like to know how they intervened in this case.

[Name removed]

163. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Minstrel Boy]

164. Fallacy: appeal to ridicule

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule: The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

[9215]

165. We are exploring possibilities here.

It is obvious that you don't want that to happen. Why?

Please read post 160 before going off on the conspiracy nut angle.

[JackRiddler]

284. Gee...

Wishful thinking and naivete, convenient social consensus, the desire never to rock the boat, career concerns... do not exist. Dow to hit 36,000 next year!

[Minstrel Boy]

155. ABC News, Dec 1, 2000: "US, Colombia Deny Assassination Attempt"

From ABC News, Dec 1, 2000:

Coincidence?
Bombs Found During U.S. Senator’s Colombia Visit, But Officials Deny Assassination Plot

Dec. 1 — U.S. and Colombian officials today denied reports that U.S. officials visiting a remote Colombian town had been targeted in an assassination attempt.

Local police had discovered land mines near the airport in the town of Barrancabermeja where Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., and U.S. Ambassador to Colombia Anne Patterson were scheduled to visit on Thursday.

Police Col. José Miguel Villar had said Wellstone and Patterson were the likely targets but could not absolutely confirm it.

But State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said during a briefing today in Washington: “We have no evidence to suggest that anybody was trying to assassinate anybody.”

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/colombia001201.html

...

Herbicide Douses US Senator
U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), one of the few senators who opposed a $1.3 billion U.S. aid plan ostensibly directed at Colombia’s drug trade, headed a November 28–30 fact-finding delegation to Colombia. While watching the Colombian National Police demonstrate its fumigation of coca plants, Wellstone and other members of his delegation were hit with a fine spray of the herbicide glyphosate from a helicopter flying less than 200 feet above them. Wellstone reportedly joked about the incident, but delegation member Pamela Costain, executive director of the Minneapolis-based Resource Center of the Americas, was upset: “I’m fearful about what they’re using, and I really didn’t want to get it on me,” she said.

Just before the incident, Lt. Col. Marcos Pedreros, the police official in charge of the spraying mission, had assured Wellstone that the spray posed no risk to humans, animals or the environment. Ironically, the U.S. Embassy in Colombia had just circulated materials to reporters, noting the "precise geographical coordinates" used to spray coca fields. According to embassy officials, a computer program sets precise flight lines with a 170-foot width, leaving little room for error.
http://www.americas.org/news/nir/20001210_herbicide_douses_u_s_senator.asp

From AP, Dec 2, 2000:

Wellstone said he made the perilous journey to show support for the human rights activists, who face immense risk.

``I don't know whether I was targeted, but I certainly know that the human rights activists are targeted,'' Wellstone told an airport news conference on his return to Minneapolis on Friday.

For Wellstone, a former civil rights activist and college professor, his two-day visit to Colombia also was aimed at making a stand against Plan Colombia, a drug-eradication effort being funded by $1.3 billion from Washington. Under the plan, dozens of U.S.-donated combat helicopters will ferry U.S.-trained Colombian troops into cocaine-producing plantations to seize them from insurgents.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/120200-01.htm


So many accidents, so many coincidences. Poor guy had the worst luck. :eyes:

[Fovea]

156. I blame some guy

with a high gain radar unit standing in the approach path and causing severe pain, blindness and panic in the pilot at a crucial moment.

The lookdown radar unit on a MiG can kill a Jack Rabbit at 300 yards.
It is enough to kill avionics and burn the flesh of someone trying to fly a plane. Remember the work on 'non-lethal' microwave wepons done recently for crowd control.

[9215]

160. "Expert".......a CIA plant?

The NTSB Report is short, sweet and to the point:
<http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2002/021217a.htm>
Note that this report never suggests icing as a probable cause of Wellstone's crash. Here is the totality of what it says about icing:
The pilot received two flight service weather briefings prior to the flight.
Specialists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, are assisting the NTSB weather group in its efforts to more accurately define the icing conditions that existed along the accident flight’s route.

From the 12/15 Pioneer Press:
<http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/2002/12/15/news/local/4736651.htm>
The National Transportation Safety Board, which is conducting the official inquiry into the crash of the Beech King Air A100, has not publicly ruled out any cause. However, experts who have reviewed crashes for the NTSB and the Air Force suggest the near-freezing conditions in northern Minnesota could have caused the plane to drift off course.
Paul Czysz, an aviation expert with decades of experience in plane crashes and investigations, echoed other experts when he said that if no mechanical failures are detected, icing becomes a lead suspect.
"Even a little ice can get you into a stall,'' said Czysz, a professor emeritus at the St. Louis University Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering. "You already are at a minimal speed. In landing, an eighth of an inch (of ice) is a disaster. Ice can cover … in the blink of an eye.''
Safety board investigators already have reported that Conry and co-pilot Michael Guess were advised of icing that day at 5,000 to 11,000 feet, and they took the plane higher to avoid it. But the ground temperature at Eveleth was only a few degrees above freezing, which Czysz said could actually worsen any icing problems.
The wings and tail of the King Air A100 are equipped with ice boots, which can be inflated to burst heavy accumulations of ice. However, they are most effective when the ice is about a half-inch thick, Czysz said.
The plane was headed due west toward the runway when, minutes before landing, it inexplicably turned to the south. That turn, or roll, could have been caused by ice building up more heavily on one wing than the other, Czysz said.

So who is Paul Czysz, the "aviation expert with decades of experience in plane crashes and investigations" and "professor emeritus at the St. Louis University Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering"?
From the second listing on google searching for "Paul Czysz":
<http://parks.slu.edu/ae_me/faculty/f_czysz.htm>
Note that his resume lists absolutely no experience in plane crashes and investigations!
What is does say is that this man is simply a lifetime defense contract employee. He's even working in a campus building named for the same defense contractor he's been employed by for 29 years!
His field of expertise is aerospace engineering--not aviation. His specialization is advanced propulsion systems, not aircraft safety. Note that the very same university he works at has a large aviation department:
<http://parks.slu.edu/aviation/faculty.htm>
And he is not among those listed.
He is a "professor emeritus" in name only. He lists no research papers on his webpage. He lists no teaching experience on his webpage. This guy didn't even get his bachelor's degree until 1995! And he doesn't even have a master's degree in his field of expertise, much less the field of aviation.
So how in the hell did two reporters in Minnesota deem a 29 year defense contractor propulsion systems engineer from Missouri--who has only had a bachelor's degree for seven years--the foremost expert on Minnesota charter aviation crashes?
Kinda makes you wonder, dunnit?

Question: How did Czysz become the spokesperson here? How did the Press find him, or he the Press.

The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.
ex-CIA Director William Colby.

Note: Colby died in a mysterious boating accident. His body was found without a life jacket though those who boated with him said he was religious about wearing it.

[Blue-Jay]

166. Wow.

Just....wow.

[JetJaguar]

167. Should the Nav lights have been on?

http://www.startribune.com/style/news/politics/wellstone/ntsb/248818.pdf


...
A. ACCIDENT
Place : Eveleth, Minnesota
Date : October 25, 2002
Vehicle : Beech King Air A100, N41BA
NTSB No. : DCA03MA008
Investigator : Mike Hauf
B. COMPONENTS EXAMINED
Left wing navigational light
Right wing navigational light
Tail light
C. DETAILS OF THE EXAMINATION
The glass envelope for the left wing navigational light was broken away from the light bulb and no portion of the filament remained attached to the filament posts.A large portion of the glass envelope for the right wing navigational light was broken
away from the light bulb and the filament was fractured adjacent to each post. About 12 filament turns remained with one post and about four on the other. No evidence of hot stretching or severe relaxation of the filament coils was noted on the remaining filament pieces. The glass envelope for the tail light was intact. The light contained two filaments, and both were fractured through straight portions of the filaments adjacent to the posts. The filaments were visible inside the glass envelope as single pieces, and magnified optical examination through the glass envelope showed that the filaments did not contain hot stretching or severe relaxation of the coils.

James F. Wildey II
Supervisory Metallurgist


---------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some NTSB links that go into a little
detail on what "hot stretching " infers.


---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/HAR9601.pdf
...
All were examined by the Safety Board’s materials laboratory. The examinations disclosed that although the filaments in some of the side marker lamps were broken, none of them showed any evidence of the hot stretching or deformation that typically occurs when illuminated lamps are subjected to impact forces. Although not conclusive, these examinations suggested that the side marker lights on the accident semitrailer were not illuminated at the time of the collision...



http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/1996/RAR9604.pdf
...
The filament in the operator-side marker light bulb showed evidence of hot stretching, which is consistent with a hot filament that has been subjected to high impact forces...


http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR95-04.pdf
...
The left engine fire detection T-handle was recovered from the cockpit wreckage in the stowed or normal position. There was no evidence of hot stretching (elongation) of the bulb filaments in the T-handle that would occur when a hot filament receives an impact load...

----------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear Although not conclusive(ly) by the absence of hot stretching. Before impact the navigational lights were without power for some reason.

An unflicked switch?




I voted undecided.

[mhr]

192. I Am a Commercial Pilot, Navigation Lights Are Not Used During Daylight

Nothing unusual.

[Jakey]

203. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but...

aren't position (navigation) lights supposed to be illuminated during IFR operations, day or night?

[mhr]

296. Those May Be Company Requirements However

In Reviewing part 91.205 sections a, b, c

Day IFR operations would only require an anticolision beacon and not navigation lights.

Night IFR would require the use of the beacon above and navigation lights.

Note that navigation laights are meant for VFR operations since the intent is for others to see you. If you are in hard IFR conditions, it would not matter because you would be obscured from view by the weather.

[MrPrax]

168. Nothing in the Middle...

like a category...suspicious...
I went for 2 coz it is very very suspect...But I would have prefered very very suspect
but I am not willing to go over to the dark side yet...BUT it is very very suspect indeed...
And should have had an independently appointed and enpowered investigator...
I mean this was not in context an ordinary private plane wreck--a popular incumbent campaigning during an election--should always be treated with suspicion so those so inclined to engage in political assassination are deterred and democracy doesn't end up like the Roman Senate...

'Hey Paul...is that a knife in your back or are you just unhappy to see us'
yuck yuck


and put a mention of Brother Paul on your poster

[tom_paine]

172. I thin democarcy ALREADY has wound up like the Roman Senate

And we have our "divinely appointed" Emperor Bunnypants* as proof.

Poor Wellstone, he never stood a chance.

Which, of course, was the same chance that Cicero stood.

[Padraig18]

190. What strikes me as odd here

We've had at least two pilots post to this thread, one commercial and one private, and neither of them finds anything about the crash terribly suspicious.

Instead, we see people seizing on the "He said the weather was OK (20 minutes before/45 minutes after/15 miles away, etc)" when what we don't see is anyone recognizing that the primary pilot himself thought it below minimums earlier that morning, and only changed his mind later when it went above minimums--- minimums. *ding, ding* Can we all take a DEEP breath and say the word 'marginal' together without our heads exploding?

Who was responsible for airplane crashes before the BFEE came into being? Who's responsible for the hundreds of general-aviation fatalities that DON'T involve elected Federal officials? Does everyone here hear hoofbeats and scream 'zebras!' these days?

:eyes:

[Jakey]

198. Make that 3...

The weather condition at a destination field is characterized by the degree to which it will impede your ability to complete a successful approach to landing. The field is either above minimums, at minimums or below minimums. "At minimum" conditions (such as those existing at Eveleth) may well result in a (or several) missed approach(es) with a return to your departure airport or to a designated alternate.

Was it a "PRIMARY" causative factor? Probably not. Was it a "CONTRIBUTIVE" factor? Without question, in that it mandated the execution of a non-precision approach in marginal (at best) weather conditions, one of the most mentally-taxing and skill-intensive procedures in aviation.

[Padraig18]

206. 4, actually

I have a friend who's a private pilot with over 40 years behind the yoke(?) and 10K+ hours, and he says the same as do you. Horrible.... heartbreaking... tragic... shocking... but utterly ordinary, as general aviation goes.

[stickdog]

226. And we have a bunch of Clark sympathizers leading the charge against

"irrational conspiratorialists."

What a surprise that the same people who believe a Republican general would make a good Democratic candidate because HE SAYS HE'S NOW A DEMOCRAT would also freak out if anyone has the temerity to ask for some proof that a potential murder was an accident before blindly ascribing to coincidence theory.

[stickdog]

223. Without question?

The weather was fine.

There was no ice.

There was no wind.

Visibility was 3-4 miles.

The only problem was a trace of low fog.

There is NO evidence the weather played ANY factor in this crash.

[Jakey]

228. Yup...without question...

as you've been told ad nauseam by folks who understand.

The weather condition at a destination field is characterized by the degree to which it will impede your ability to complete a successful approach to landing.

[stickdog]

241. So you reject ANY POSSIBILITY of pilot incapacitation?

What evidence have you used to completely rule out this possibility?

[Jakey]

256. The topic was your contention...

that the weather was "fine". It is an absurd contention on it's face.

[stickdog]

258. No, the topic was you contention that the weather was DEFINITELY

a contributing factor.

Considering the scant evidence that has been released, your contention is absurd.

[Jakey]

263. You just don't get it....

The weather was a "contributing" factor in that it mandated the execution of a HIGHLY skill-intensive non-precision approach...an approach that can be DISASTROUS in the hands of a crew with questionable competence in cockpit resource management, instrument procedures or aircraft proficiency. There exists empirical evidence suggesting deficiencies in ALL THREE areas, when deficiencies in just ONE are enough to make for a very bad day of flying.

[stickdog]

268. IF the cause was pilot error, then the low clouds/fog were

almost certainly minor contributing factors.

But if the cause was pilot incapacitation, the weather may not have mattered one iota.

[Jakey]

281. If the cause was "pilot incapacitation"....

then you are left with the rather uncomfortable task of explaining to us all how that aircraft managed to level itself at 400 feet above the ground (the altitude, BTW, SPECIFIED in the approach procedure) and then slow itself to below stall speed with an incapacitated crew.

[Padraig18]

292. Damn you and your inconvenient facts, Jakey!

:P

[stickdog]

303. Nice rejoinder, helium!

http://strindbergandhelium.com/iron.html

[stickdog]

301. You've got those final radar returns for me, Jakey?

And if it was the pilot error YOU have to explain how the plane managed to veer a mile to the south of the VOR signal it was supposed to be locking on.

I think somebody may have set up a stronger, overriding VOR signal and then zapped our poor pilots when they were drawn off course. That would explain why the plane followed the approach procedure until the last minute.

But I've yet to see the radar returns that indicate exactly what happened over the last few minutes of flight.

Have you gotten ahold of them somehow?

[Padraig18]

277. I've repeatedly tried to explain...

... that the weather he refers to as 'fine' was, in plain english my DOG would understand, 'marginal', a/k/a 'crappy'. He thinks because planes weren't being violently tossed down from the sky all over MN that it was just hunky-dory for flying. :eyes:

[Padraig18]

231. The weather was not fine so will you stop saying that!

*My Bob Boudelang moment*

It WASN'T 'fine'--- 'fine' is sunny, warm, etc. . The weather in Northern MN that morning was 'crappy', at best!

[stickdog]

240. Above freezing, no wind, 3-4 miles of visibility, no other planes reported

any problems, a highly safe machine with two engines, two pilots and redundant systems?

What more do you want?

Should we shut down all plane travel in Minnesota for 7 months of the year?

[Padraig18]

246. Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick!

It was 'above freezing' (barely) on the ground! 500 feet up it could have been 28 F! unless you took the exact temperature at the EXACT moment the plane did the first unusual thing, you have NO way of EVER 'knowing' what the temperature was!

meteorology is not your strong suit, I'm guessing, along with areodynamics and physics---am i right? :eyes:

[Jakey]

249. Padraig...there ARE indications of..

an inversion in the area, and icing has been pretty much ruled out as causative. However, the weather still sucked.

[stickdog]

252. Except there was an inversion layer and it was above freezing to about

5,000 feet.

But thanks for playing!

[Jakey]

247. All irrelevant......

and nobody is suggesting any of the aforementioned as the primary cause, which will most probably be attributed to pilot error.

[stickdog]

255. Thanks for bringing sanity and knowledge into this debate, Jakey.

I realize there are two sides to this story. Unlike your compatriots, you do a fine job of presenting the other side.

[Jakey]

259. "WE" are trying dog.... n/t

[mhr]

205. As a Commercial Pilot, There is Nothing to Prevent a Pilot

to fly to a destination that may have weather below minimums if he believes, based on weather data, that an approach can be flown safely at his time of arrival.

In this case, the only requirement of the FAA is that the pilot have a declared secondary that does have acceptable weather and that the aircraft has enough fuel to fly to the secondary destination.

For the layman, think about it this way. Instead of flying directly to the secondary alternate first, where a landing is assured, the pilot makes a dogleg to the preferred airport to see if weather has improved. If not, then the pilot flys to the secondary and lands.

Generally the FAA does not want to limit a pilot and his desire to make a safe landing if at all possible.

For what it is worth, instrument pilots fly approaches at weather minimums everyday all over the world. Pilots make go/no-go judgements all the time.

The key is that after reviewing all available data, does the pilot believe he can navigate to and land safely at the intended destination.

As to weather, sometimes it can be very unpredictable. Landing and takeoff minimums can be compromised by changing weather in seconds.

Further, on ice, I have personally seen several inches of ice build in less than 30 seconds.

I remember one flight over Tyler, TX in a large twin turboprop. While level at 18,000 ft we were advised by ATC of icing reports ahead on our route of flight. In less than one minute we had severe icing and had to make an emergency descent to a lower and warmer altitude because the deicing boots could not break the ice quickly enough.

As I have said before, stuff happens in the real world of aviation.

[JackRiddler]

289. Okay!

So you're saying there is a case for an accident.

Why don't you want to admit there is a case for murder?

And which of these is valid as a neutral hypothesis in the scientific sense? Neither!

Now please explain something I admit I've only heard for the first time on this thread... the FBI on the scene directly?

Not to mention Wellstone being a personal target of the Rovesters?

Not to mention the Colombia incident?

Any other country in the world, I guarantee you anyone and everyone could agree that murder is a possible hypothesis, with a likelihood quite similar to accident. It takes wishful thinking to simply mock the possibility.

[Name removed]

221. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Padraig18]

227. No, I understand perfectly well.

I understand, as you apparently *don't*, that flying conditions were at or near 'marginal' all through Northern MN that morning. Look at a the NWS reports, if you don't believe it.

'Marginal' doesn't mean you *can't* fly--- it *does* mean that stuff can go VERY wrong VERY quickly, even in an Air King.

[stickdog]

243. So planes were falling out of the sky across the state that day?

Right?

[Padraig18]

250. What do you not comprehend?

Point A may be OK, while 5 miles away Point B may NOT be OK, weatherwise; 2 minutes later, the reverse could be true. What is this cockamamie 'planes were dropping out of teh sky all over MN" sophistry supposed to prove?

[stickdog]

253. That the weather certainly wasn't a primary cause of the accident. (NT)

[Jakey]

251. Just one who's crew competency is in serious contention... n/t

[Abaques]

264. This whole thread makes me sad....

Maybe it was the same people who placed explosives in the WTC buildings who sabotaged the Wellstone's flight. I hear those people also run Area 51 and shot JFK, Gandi, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X, Hitler, and some noble guy in a train in Croatia in 1914......



All you tin foil hat people ever do is cherry pick information that suits your idea of what happened and then deny that any other information is credible. You actually use the exact same argumentative tactics that the repugs use. When someone proves what you say wrong you just attack the source. Or ignore it. Or talk about some other point.


I wouldn't care but this just muddles up what we should be talking about.... like who of the dem cannidates has the best health care plan and why.... or who can challenge Bush the best on foreign policy....

This just wastes our time and makes us look bad.

[stickdog]

283. Read and analyze everything the NTSB has released.

The read every newspaper article ever written about the event.

Then, when you know as much as I do about this plane crash, please get back to me with your "cherry picking" complaints.

You have presented nothing but a dressed up logical fallacy (appeal to generality) supported by nothing other than your bare assertions (hand waving).

[Padraig18]

285. Nor have you. n/t

[mhr]

309. Hi Padraig18, Me Thinks Stickdog Has Little Practical Understanding

About aviation and aviation weather.

As you noted, weather is dynamic and not static.

When an airport is operating at minimums:

Pilot A attempts an approach and must go missed,
Pilot B following makes the same approach and lands,
Pilot C attempts the approach goes missed as well.

What changed? The weather! In the short span of 10 minutes each of these three pilots saw different conditions. Only one of the three landed on their first approach.

This happens routinely. It's happened to me.

Usually you wait a little bit in a holding pattern and then try again.

WEATHER IS NOT STATIC - Why do you think we pilots love this stuff so much! It's fun and a challenge. There is nothing quite like shooting a difficult approach with the tires finally touching terra firma.

[Padraig18]

312. Oh no! *gasp*

The BFEE was manipulating the weather--- they probably used their gigantic weather-control machine (conveniently located right next to the other VOR generator and microwave pilot-incapacitating machine) to make Wellstone's plane's wing ice up. Then the used the giant wing-ice melting machine to melt it all off after impact! The FIENDS! /sarcasm off

:P

[stickdog]

315. Yeah, a VOR is truly a sophisticated, futuristic thing.

Radio beacons are the stuff of Buck Rodgers.

And those folks at Scientific American sure like their tinfoil:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CBC91-B6FD-1E51-A98A809EC5880105

[stickdog]

313. The weather was stable that day.

No wind.

No pressure systems moving in or out.

No changes in temperature or pressure near the time of the crash greater than instrument accuracy.

Methinks you should do a bit of research before you affect a tone of haughty superiority.

[Padraig18]

317. And MEthinks...

... you would be well-served to understand the meanings of the words you're tossing about with such great authority, especially when several pilots have taken the time to educate you as to their PRECISE meanings in context, unlike myself, who has just explained the weather in layman's terms---'crappy'.

PS--- Silly ME, how could I *not* have thought of it before? They're in on 'it' too, arent they? :eyes:

[Padraig18]

318. Hand waver!

All you do, when confronted with inconvenient facts which don't fit with your theory, is go back to the same previously-dicredited evidence and repeat the same useless factoids, wave your hands and shout "But, but, but, but..." ...

[stickdog]

319. Thanks, helium.

http://strindbergandhelium.com/home.html

[Padraig18]

321. A site with some manner of evidence?

You should visit it, if it is...

[Jakey]

328. Eveleth's "stable" weather....

Here's the weather observations from Eveleth AWOS, 2 preceeding the crash and one post-crash...

Time 1454Z
wind calm; visibility 2½ miles; present weather light snow;
sky condition scattered 400, overcast 700 feet; temperature 1oC; dew point 0oC; altimeter setting 30.07 inches Hg.

Time 1514Z
wind calm; visibility 3 miles; present weather light snow;
sky condition scattered 400, overcast 700 feet; temperature 1oC; dew point 0oC; altimeter setting 30.06 inches Hg.

Time 1522Z Wellstone crash

Time 1534Z
wind calm; visibility 4 miles; present weather mist;
sky condition overcast 400; temperature 1oC; dew point minus 1oC;
altimeter setting 30.05 inches Hg.

Note that there was already a "scattered" cloud condition developed at 400 feet, which just happens to be the Minimum Descent Altitude specified in the approach procedure.

Flight in those conditions would be in and out of clouds. Note that at 1534Z the sky had gone to solid overcast at 400 feet. In those conditions it might not have been possible to EVER attain visual contact with the ground, no less the runway environment. Also keep in mind that EVM weather is reported in 100 foot increments, and the ceiling might actually have been up to 50 feet higher or lower than the reported ceiling. So, was it closer to scattered or overcast at the time of the crash and what is the liklihood of higher or lower than 400 feet? While the crash time was 4 minutes closer to the 1514z observation, how quickly could the weather change in that "stable" condition?

The ASOS at Hibbing, which is 16 miles west of Eveleth and, it appears, the closest weather reporting station to Eveleth, provides an excellent demonstration of the potential for rapidity of change and below approach minimum ceilings in this weather system. This system reports weather observations every 5 minutes as opposed to the 20 minute observations at Eveleth.

Here's the 2 preceeding the crash and one post-crash...

Time 1515Z
wind 130 degrees at 3 knots; visibility 3 miles; present weather mist;
sky condition overcast 500 feet; temperature minus 1oC; dew point minus 2oC;
altimeter setting 30.06 inches Hg. pressure altitude 1,230 feet, relative humidity 96%,
density altitude minus 400 feet, magnetic wind 130 degrees at 3 knots, remarks ceiling
varying between 300 and 600 feet.

Time 1520Z
wind 120 degrees at 3 knots; visibility 4 miles; present weather mist;
sky condition overcast 500 feet; temperature minus 1oC; dew point minus 1oC;
altimeter setting 30.06 inches Hg. pressure altitude 1,230 feet, relative humidity 100%, density altitude minus 400 feet, magnetic wind 130 degrees at 3 knots.

Time 1522Z Wellstone crash

Time 1525Z
wind calm; visibility 4 miles; present weather mist;
sky condition overcast 300 feet; temperature minus 1oC; dew point minus 1oC; altimeter setting 30.06 inches Hg. pressure altitude 1,230 feet, relative humidity 96%, density altitude minus 300 feet, magnetic wind 000 degrees at 0 knots.

In 5 minutes, the ceiling went from 500 overcast to a below approach minimum 300 overcast and maintained this thru the remaining 3 observations! And THIS is the same weather system that was impacting Eveleth. Based on the trend at Hibbings, my guess is the Eveleth ceiling was on the low side of 400 feet and that the ceiling changed from scattered to overcast close to the 1522Z crash time.

[stickdog]

330. Wow, what a violent "weather system"!

Almost like a hurricane came through, huh?

[Padraig18]

331. Fallacy: Appeal to ridicule

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule: The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument."

Of course, it's what you do best when persented with facts that don't fit your :tinfoilhat: theory...

[Jakey]

332. Nope...just very low variable ceilings...

which were even below approach minimums at several locations in the area.

[stickdog]

336. Look. Slightly changing low cloud cover COULD have been a factor.

But it doesn't explain why the plane veered off course or why the plane was going well over 40 mph too slow.

Or why, if they went into a stall, the pilots never tried to recover.

Or why the plane turned left when the flight plan specified fly arounds should veer to the right.

In fact, since conditions were always above minimum and were pretty damn stable all morning, they really don't explain much of anything.

[Jakey]

339. Oh fer chrissakes.....

you would test the patience of Job. Go argue with the NTSB when the report comes out.

[stickdog]

340. 72% to 28% (nt)

[Selwynn]

418. Yes, 72% are indeed stupid

[stickdog]

427. Of course, you are smart enough to rule out explanations without evidence.

Congratulations on being part of the brilliant DU minority.

[Bridget Burke]

286. Thanks for your concern

We wouldn't want to "look bad". Oh, and we "cherry pick" information...where have I heard that phrase before? We're in danger of being "marginalized".

This is an old controversy. I think it was probably an accident. However, some people have questions. They are allowed to do so.

Also, calling us "you tin foil hat people" apparently means that we should accept, unquestioningly, the official take on every event.

What do you think about LIHOP?

[theemu]

351. Well, I don't know what that other poster thinks about LIHOP

But I think it's an inane horseshit theory based on some innate desire in the Democratic Party to villainize Bush. It's basically an elaborate dehumanization technique - by pinning a conspiracy theory that in the end has little evidence on him, we're creating a supervillain to defeat. It's D&D political bullshit, and both sides in American politics do it.

It's a lot easier to imagine that your enemy is evil than to imagine him as a real human being who operates within the framework of a complex series of motivations, so a lot of people who frankly, don't understand politics (on all points of the political spectrum) do it. I'm so tired of the words 'No blood for oil!' because I think they do damage the Democratic Party and liberal causes in general. It's the sort of catchphrase which sounds good at first, but in the end reveals only how oversimplified our view is of global politics.

In the end, though, the reason why the Republicans get away with it is because they have wealthy moneymen who fund thinktanks to put out this sort of bullshit, whereas our idiocy comes from conspiracy theory websites.

[Abaques]

353. You're probably right....

But I still think that a full investigation should happen. Bush has tried to cover up too much. But probably just cause he was grossly incompetent.

[stickdog]

379. Yeah. A more complex and nuanced analysis would reveal that Bush

is actually more heinous than simply evil.

[Abaques]

352. An example....

Also, calling us "you tin foil hat people" apparently means that we should accept, unquestioningly, the official take on every event.


Ummmm, no. I never said that. You implied that from what I said.


I firmly believe that whatever the official report states when it comes out that it should be firmly investigated by the media and ordinary people. But that investigation needs to use real verifiable facts and expert opinion, not conjecture from non-experts.


As regards to LIHOP, I firmly advocate a complete investigation into *all* the events around 9-11. But I feel that until we take back the White House we won't be able to get a clear picture. But until that time I think that making non-expert conjecture is just pointless.


The way that you took what I said as an implication for some other meaning is just another example of the common argument strategy that the conspiracy theorists use.


And by the way, due to the fact that several pilots have chimed in saying that there was good probabillity that it was just an accident, then I am inclined to agree with them. They are, after all, the experts in this kind of thing.

[JackRiddler]

297. "The noble guy in a train"

I think he was in open carriage, actually. But never mind...

We need a second Godwin's law... if a Usenet thread goes on long enough, the probability that a self-styled, sober skeptic who is defending a comforting or official story resorts to mentioning "Area 51" or aliens as a means of ad hominem ridicule rises to one.

He who does so, appears to have been backed into a corner, and therefore loses credibility.

Your other typical fallacy is the old censorious "don't say this because makes us look bad."

Who are "we"? Look bad to whom?

I'm more than a few years out of high school. Do you think I give a fly how I "look"?

Last I looked, I was not yet the PR shill for any party, so I am still allowed to say what I think, not what you think looks good. Thanks.

[Abaques]

356. Backed into a corner?

That makes me laugh...

I'm sorry if my rant offended you. I did not mean to imply any kind of censorship was needed. My whole point was that any kind of conspiracy theory needs to be based on real evidence and expert opinion. Not on conjecture. Which is what both this and LIHOP/MIHOP are.

[9215]

335. sad? or guilty?

guilty of gross mental laziness.

[Abaques]

354. Laziness?

All of the evidence that the conspiracy people have is based upon circumstancial evidence. Mostly about the weather conditions not being bad (which many people, including several pilots) have countered. No one has presented any solid evidence for a conspiracy to down Paul Wellstone's plane. Its all just conjecture from people who are not experts.

Sorry, but just because I see no real basis for your theory does not mean I am mentally lazy. It just means I want hard facts.

[9215]

360. Here is something think about:

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/franklind136346.html

Powerful Liberal politicians are hated by the rabid Right. FDR had an attempt on his life by Right-Wing whackos, Kennedys, MLK. When they die it should not be taken at face value,. Particularly when they die as Wellstone did at this critical juncture with a reputation for being opposed to Bush politics, he was opposed to Iraq War, changed Repugs to majority party, the Repug group Americans for Job Security illegally intervened from out of state to run negative campaign ads against Wellstone. The head of this org was a member of the racist org Ripon, etc.



You are sitting here waiting for someone to summarize all this and hand it to you on a silver platter.

I call that lazy.

[Abaques]

372. No....

No, I am not waiting for someone to summarize it all and hand it to me on a silver platter. What I am waiting for is some hard evidence. And I am still waiting.

Nothing you just posted provides anything more then cicumstantial evidence.


Here's what you can provide me with....


An explanation of exactly how the plane was brought down and evidence to back this up. This evidence must be based off of expert analysis of the plane wreckage or a verifiable paper trail showing what and when someone did something to sabotage the plane. Both would be preferred.

Alternatively you could provide witnesses to the actuall conspiracy and their testimony. Their testimony must be verifiable by other sources as well.



If you can provide either of those two items to the world then I think we can start talking about conspiracies. Until then its nothing but conjecture.

[stickdog]

381. What is your explanation for what happened?

1) No emergency calls even though there were two pilots.

2) No reports of ice by Wellstone's pilots or anyone in the state at the altitude the pilots were flying for over 10 minutes before the crash.

3) The crash mysteriously veers to the left well over a minute before crashing, ending up more than a mile south of its proscribed due east approach.

4) The plane mysteriously slows in an incedibly dangerous manner -- well over 40 mph under the proscribed approach speed.

5) The stall horn goes off it the pilots' ears.

6) Instead of trying to recover from a putative stall, the plane continues to slow while turning left, even theough the flight plan says a fly around should veer to the right.

OK, so tell us how the so-called accident happened.

[Padraig18]

388. No, *YOU* tell us how the 'murder' happened.

Your assertion, your burden.

[stickdog]

406. This is a debate, not a court of law. I'm not looking for a conviction.

We have competing assertions here:

1) Wellstone's crash must have been an accident

and

2) Wellstone's crash may have been foul play.

I have explained my side. The plane was drawn off course with an overriding navigation radio beacon sent up in the woods about a mile southeast of the airport. Then the pilots were incapacitated somehow, perhaps with a microwave weapon, perhaps with a hand held missile of some sort.

Scientific American talks about the high powered microwave weapon I'm describing here:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CBC91-B6FD-1E51-A98A809EC5880105

Now, in order to choose between two competing assertions, we must here your explanation for how the accident happened. Otherwise, we'll just have to go with my explanation by default, won't we?

[Padraig18]

408. My explanation, which you have repeatedly ignored...

... is likely some combination of weather and pilot error, subject to revision when the NTSB report is released.

[stickdog]

415. Those are meaningless words. Produce a narrative explanation.

Like I did, you must explain:

1) No emergency calls even though there were two pilots.

2) No reports of ice by Wellstone's pilots or anyone in the state at the altitude the pilots were flying for over 10 minutes before the crash.

3) The crash mysteriously veers to the left well over a minute before crashing, ending up more than a mile south of its proscribed due east approach.

4) The plane mysteriously slows in an incedibly dangerous manner -- well over 40 mph under the proscribed approach speed.

5) The stall horn goes off in the pilots' ears.

6) Instead of trying to recover from a putative stall, the plane continues to slow while turning left, even theough the flight plan says a fly around should veer to the right.

OK, so tell us how the so-called accident happened.

We're waiting.

[Padraig18]

422. You can wait until hell freezes over-- it's there, read it!

Not merely me, but several other have *repeatedly* offered possible explanations which fit known facts; if you think you're going to wear me down by being a wiseass, forget it! read it where it is in the thread, or not, I could give a flying fuck!

You could give a woodpecker a headache!

[stickdog]

430. Losing an argument so completely tends to do that.

Even if you have a head like a woodpecker.

[Abaques]

390. Everything you just posted was circumstancial evidence...

Nothing you just posted provides anything more then cicumstantial evidence.


Here's what you can provide me with....


An explanation of exactly how the plane was brought down and evidence to back this up. This evidence must be based off of expert analysis of the plane wreckage or a verifiable paper trail showing what and when someone did something to sabotage the plane. Both would be preferred.

Alternatively you could provide witnesses to the actuall conspiracy and their testimony. Their testimony must be verifiable by other sources as well.



If you can provide either of those two items to the world then I think we can start talking about conspiracies. Until then its nothing but conjecture.



*NOTE: This is just a cut and paste of my post #372. Why? Because none of the conspiracy theorists have provided any real hard evidence. Provide that evidence and then we can talk.

[stickdog]

410. Where is your concrete evidence that this was an accident?

You have offered none.

You won't (or can't) even begin to explain how the plane crashed accidently.

You offer a speculative theory: the plane crashed accidently. You provide no evidence for this theory. You provide no explanation for this theory.

I offer a speculative theory: the plane did not crash accidently. I provide circumstancial evidence for my theory, and I provide a possible explanation that explains all the evidence.

So my explanation obviously wins by default, now doesn't it?

[Abaques]

445. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way buddy....

It requires a much greater jump in logic to argue for murder (which is what you are arguing for) then it does to argue for an accident.

I equate this as something similar to the evolution/creationism debate...

Evolution states that animals evolve from other animals over long periods of time with occasional leaps here and there (due to some genetic mutation), but it does not explain exactly how that change occurs in each circumstance.

Creationism argues that because evolution is not fully explained, then creationism must also be a possible valid explanation. This is used to allow creationists to continue to argue their pseudo-science while conceding that evolution does occur to a degree (they had to do that because it has been scientifically observed over time). This is the basics for the common creationist argument that the woodpecker's beak (or any other relatively complex organ) is too complex for evolution to have happened. This is plainly false and has been proven as such by many, many people.


You and your fellow conspiracy theorists are using the same argumentative techniques that the creationists use. You ignore the fact that we can never know the complete truth about why or how everything happens and just put in whatever theory fits how you want (or think) the world works. It just doesn't work.




Oh, and simply by perusing this thread, several commercial and small plane pilots (whom I would consider experts), have stated that the most likely cause of the crash was pilot error or equipment failure, possibly due to bad weather. That seems like fairly good, albeit circumstancial evidence to me that it was most likely an accident. Although I wait for the final NTSB report to be analyzed before making any final descision.

[loudsue]

333. Even people who are totally A-political knew something

was fishy about that crash. There's not ONE doubt in my mind it was intentional, AND that they were hoping to get Ted Kennedy, too, who was supposed to have been on the flight with Wellstone.

More blood on bush hands....it's a thing each successive generation of that evil family is trying to out-do the previous generation.

I'm afraid shrubbie is going to get the bush grand prize, before he's through.

:kick:

[nomatrix]

341. The poll gave 3 options

(a) An Unfortunate Accident

(b) Planned and Executed by the Bush Adminstration or by someone who wanted to see Wellstone dead

(c) Undecided

It could be option a.
I am not a crash investigator or involved in aviation. I don't think DU is a forum like airdisaster.com who also speculated on the crash with many pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, and crash investigators. Even there, with the combined experience, they could not be as well informed as the posts expressed here.

It could be option b.
That has 3 choices, because someone experienced in this line of work is good enough to make it look like option a.

I'll take Option c.
Speculation is a wonderful tool to sooth the technical mind when data is not available. Al Weaver (crash investigator)

[stickdog]

342. Al, I must say that C should have been the most popular pick, IMHO (NT)

[nomatrix]

344. I'm sorry Stickdog

My bad. I was quoting (I believe attributed to) Al Weaver who is a crash investigator, & has a running thread on Airdisaster.com.

There should have been a space between my option C selection and his expert opinion. He is the man.

BTW, Excellent Q & A in their forum on piecing together evidence to recreate events that led to crashes he has investigated.

[nomatrix]

343. Use of tin foil hat

With all of the misinformation, disinformation, deceit, and power-grab associated with death, since 2000, tin foil is no longer needed, it is all fair game.

Using a scale of plausable/probable....

Paul Wellstone, maverick senator, described as "chickenshit" by former VP, President, CIA director father of sitting comander-in- chief. Questioning his disappearance from radar screen permanently
(throwing the Senate to Republicans and $$$lobbied$$$ legislation sailing through)....

and....

Let's take this example.


9/11 and CIA Sim
WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm

O.K., ask yourself of the 2 scenerio I've given, which would be doubted first without proof?

Crash investigation is not my forte but politics is.
Ruthless corporate shills stealing more than money. I've watched thier pitiful charades for a decade. When Wellstone spoke, he represented the people, not the lobbist. Definite threat.

[Corgigal]

350. Pattern of conduct

This is why I have problems with this aircrash. Im undecided BUT only because of 9-11, not counting votes and the higly aggressive way this adminstration does it's business. I'm a former ATC'er and I read that data also and I always work back from weather to pilot error and then other factors. Hell, I'm still not sure about TWA800 but it wasn't a missle.

Since I'm married to a former homicide detective and with the ATC experience I now look at pattern of conduct. After watching how Bush lied to us about Iraq (yeah I know we knew the truth but most Americans trusted that BS) and his other behaviors while in office. Example fainting from prezels, I just got to tell you this aircrash could have been a homicide. It's not like people who do these kind of thing for a living don't believe we are stupid to begin with. They have lots of historical evidence to prove we are.

[Minstrel Boy]

355. The FBI, the intense fire in the fuselage, the blue smoke - anybody?

No one who supports the "It was an accident, you fools!" supposition has addressed these issues:

The arrival of an FBI recovery team from Minneapolis just 45 minutes after the crash was identified. This is significant because:

- The FBI had not been notified of the crash.
- Minneapolis is a 40 minute flight from Eveleth.
- The FBI team secured the perimeter, and had the site to itself for eight hours before the arrival of the NTSB.
- Despite witnesses, including a local sherriff, seeing the FBI on site 45 minutes after the crash, the FBI has since been elusive about the arrival time, moving it back, in at least one instance, more than three hours.
- The arrival of an FBI recovery team so soon upon an isolated crash site suggests anticipation, which in turn suggests the possibility of tampering with the evidence for the eight hours in which they had the site to themselves.
- Curiously, members of the Minneapolis FBI recovery team had been accused of stealing evidence from the WTC site.

The intense fire in the fuselage, which burned with an unusual blue smoke. This is significant because:

- Fuel would burn with a heavy black smoke.
- The fuel was stored in the wings.
- The wings separated upon impact.
- The wings were charred and damaged, but did not burn as intensely as the fuselage.

These points were introduced, with links and testimony, in posts numbered 133, 171, 327, 334 and 338, and the questions they raise have not been answered by coincidence theorists. Perhaps they overlooked them. So, one last time - any takers?

[stickdog]

357. Don't forget that all mention of the FBI was redacted from the police logs

and the FOIA request for the planes that landed and departed Duluth Airport on the day before, the day of and the day after Wellstone's plane crashed were denied because of "national security."

[Padraig18]

363. Hoofbeats mean horses

"Kathleen Bangs

Published June 15, 2003 BANG15

There's a saying in the field of medicine: "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." It means, simply, that when a doctor is presented with a patient's symptoms, he should look for the ordinary when making a diagnosis before jumping to an erroneous conclusion by chasing the obscure.

Perhaps University of Minnesota conspiracy "expert" Prof. James Fetzer should write that adage on a few hundred Post-It notes to serve as a constant reminder.

The June 03 Star Tribune front page coverage of Fetzer's theories about the Wellstone plane crash sadly served to legitimize the rantings of a conspiracy nut desperately seeking credibility.

Fetzer, a longtime JFK conspiracy crusader, has made a cottage industry out of a misguided need to divine conspiracies where others find rational explanations. His latest cause is the accident that took the lives of Sen. Paul Wellstone and seven others.

One is tempted to brush Fetzer off as a harmless eccentric, but that would be a mistake, because he uses his bully pulpit as a state-funded college professor to force his students to listen, digest and regurgitate back to him the foundations of his many baseless, macabre theories.

In speaking with Fetzer it quickly becomes obvious that he does not want to know the truth. When presented with pesky facts, he simply changes the subject.

A main tenet of Fetzer's Wellstone case is that communications at the time of the crash between the pilots and control tower were "abruptly terminated." There was no control tower at the Eveleth airport, the site of the crash. He also finds it significant that the crew did not take the time to notify the "tower" that the flight was experiencing difficulty -- in other words, to have sent a distress call.

But in the few seconds it took to plummet into the trees, the stunned pilots would not have had time to make a radio call. Nor would anything in their training have instructed them to do so in a loss-of-control situation. As every pilot knows instinctively, in such situations you fight to save your life; you don't reach for a microphone.

Yes, airplanes do occasionally fall out of the sky, and sometimes they do so for no immediately apparent reason. That's why official investigations can be painstakingly slow, now taking years instead of months to reach a final determination of cause. It's frustrating, but no more so than the realization that no machine operated by humans can ever be foolproof to human error.

And when a passenger, even a preeminent citizen of Sen. Wellstone's stature, hires an on-demand charter flight, he's reaching into the grab bag of fate. There is no guarantee of any real minimum standard regarding the quality and training of the flight crew.

Fetzer believes that because the pilots were certified, they were well qualified. He says the plane "was piloted by two experienced pilots with strong aviation credentials and training."

Few surrounding the case would echo that sentiment. In future legal hearings, strong testimony will be presented to refute that assertion.

In the real world of flying, gravity is the ultimate law. To disobey it is to invite disaster.

When the King Air dangerously slowed to 85 knots, precipitously close to stall speed, it challenged that law and lost. An unexpected low-altitude stall is almost always an unrecoverable situation. Deadly, but not mysterious.

When conducting an approach in instrument conditions, the safest way is via what is called a precision approach. A major component of this approach is the glide slope -- a radio beam that gives the crew a safe path to descend on to the runway threshold. Wellstone's crew had no such luxury; the Eveleth airport is equipped with only a basic nonprecision approach -- a beam that gives a reference to what direction the runway is, but no guidance on descending to it.

Crucial to safety on a nonprecision approach is energy management. At some point, usually just a few hundred feet above the ground, the descent has to be halted and the aircraft leveled off at a constant altitude. Unfortunately, during this critical period the aircraft is getting close to the airport, and the pilots have to search outside the windows of the cockpit visually to find the runway.

Near to the ground, the aircraft is slow, with the gear and flaps extended and providing drag. Engine power has been reduced on the descent, which compounds the loss of speed and energy as the airplane is leveled off. On this flight, there was also the possibility of icing, which would put additional drag on the already too-slow airplane.

This combination of slow speed, low altitude and pilot distraction is so common a scenario for a plane crash that it has become almost a cliché.

The only real mystery Fetzer has provided is whether he actually believes his own hyperbole, or whether it's just a manipulative vehicle to advance a publishing career.

Perhaps Fetzer has been camped out on the grassy knoll of JFK lore for too long.

I just wish that the next time he hears hoofbeats pounding in his head he'd think horses, and not the usual conspiratorial zebras, because the University of Minnesota should not have to be a partner in his rantings."

Kathleen Bangs, a freelance writer and commercial pilot, has agreed to serve as an expert witness on behalf of copilot Michael Guess' estate in litigation related to the Wellstone crash.

[9215]

366. How does that square with this

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/franklind136346.html


Your goal is obvious: "Everybody, shut up, quit thinking and questioning the official stories and ignore those who do question them."

What is ironic is the "credentials" of the "experts" are less than wanting. One of them (Cycsz)who was running his mouth a mile a minute about how the accident could happen had no experience in aviation crashes, NONE! See my post on "Expert..... a CIA plant?"

Then when you look at the pattern of oddities and inaccuracies....Well let me just say that if the standard for taking action (read: independent investigation)was the same as Bush used for attacking Iraq, Bush would already be in jail awaiting execution. There is a gross double standard. The Right-wing gets to go to war on little more than hearsay, while those trying to expose their crimes have to have 100% proof before even an investigation begins.

That is really the fundamental rot of this vile episode in US history. These fascist bastards do what they want, when they want and will kill anybody who gets in the way, including thousands of innocent people for oil, while those attempting to investigate them are muzzled by a vast array of Psy-ops disinformationsts, but that is only one segment of a mush grander operation to incapacitate the minds people.

Now go ahead, call me paranoid. Try to trivialize my claim, but then look up Operation Mockingbird, Amadeus, Council for Cultural Freedom, Paperclip, Pegasaus,Cyclops, MK-Ultra. The list goes on and on.

[Padraig18]

368. My goal

"Your goal is obvious: "Everybody, shut up, quit thinking and questioning the official stories and ignore those who do question them."

Hardly. My goal is to wait for factual data and reports from the NTSB. They ARE the investigating agency, they have the facilities and expertise to analyse the physical evidence, etc., and until they DO, waving your hands and running around screaming 'murder' smacks of nothing so much as shrill hysteria, if not outight dementia.


On edit: the problem you and all other 'conspiracy theorists' have here is that you don't even know WHAT 'the official story' IS yet; you assume *in advance* that the report will not be accurate; pray tell, when did you get a crystal ball? I must have been away from home when UPS delivered mine.

[stickdog]

377. Fetzer's Reply: If You Hear Hundreds of Hoofbeats, Think Predator Hunting

http://www.readerweekly.org/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/222JimFetzer.htm


That something unexpected happened, of course, is not news. The claim that the pilots, the plane, and the weather have to be ruled out "absolutely" goes too far, since in the real world it would be enough to rule them out as improbable rather than as impossible causes of the crash. Evidence presented in my columns had already done that, but you don't have to take my word for it. The NTSB itself has conducted its own studies, which undermine those possibilities.

An article published in the St. Paul Pioneer Press (30 April 2003) by Charles Laszewski explained, "pilots flying a simulator meant to duplicate conditions near the airport at the time of the crash of the Beech King Air A100 twin-engine plane were able to safely land, even after coming in slower than normal, the National Transportation Safety Board said." Because this information is crucial to understanding the case, I quote it here at length.

"Earlier this month, safety board investigators brought to Florida two pilots from Aviation Charter, the company that flew Wellstone's party, and put them into a simulator similar to the King Air A100. The pilots were given three scenarios for approaching the Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport, with two of them duplicating the instructions given to Wellstone's plane.

"The final of the three tests asked the pilots to wait longer than usual to extend the landing gear and begin their descent to the run way. That one significantly increased the workload for the pilots, according to the report. They also flew the plane at the unusually slow speed the Wellstone plane traveled at before the crash. However, the pilots were able to power up the engines and fly the simulator out of trouble.


more ...

[Padraig18]

364. Another voice of sanity

Subj: Complete version of Article
Date: 6/20/2003 9:59:58 AM Central Standard Time
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Sent from the Internet



(This is the complete version - it contains the footnotes and bio.)
------------------------------------
Duluth, MN June 19, 2003

A pilot critiques the Wellstone crash

By William H. Rees
Reader Weekly

The discussion about the cause of the Wellstone plane crash has got
completely out of hand. The Reader published five or six articles by Prof.
James Fetzer about it and as a result conspiracy theorists of various
stripes slander each other in scores of emails and a lawsuit is threatened.
None of this should have happened. Fetzer's series should have ended with
his first article, or before.

Fetzer began by wrapping himself in the Scientific Method and then promptly
violated it.

Fetzer wrote in his fifth paragraph, "One of the most basic principles of
scientific reasoning. . .the requirement of total evidence, insists that, in
the search for truth, all the evidence whose truth or falsity or presence or
absence make a difference must be taken into account." I agree completely,
and that is why I write. I'm a retired Air Force pilot with 5,500 flying
hours, mostly in jet fighter types and quite a bit of it in weather. I see
things in the reports of the Wellstone crash that should end this debate
once and for all.

Fetzer's conspiracy theory depends absolutely on neither pilot error or
weather being the cause of the accident. If either cannot be written off
then his whole conspiracy theory has no reason for existing. He wrote them
both off by his own judgement, although he is neither an experienced pilot
or a weather expert. He cited "evidence" that is merely his own uninformed
opinion of mostly hearsay, ignored or trashed the opinions of people better
qualified than he, and then proceeded to his conspiracy. He is no
scientist.

Fetzer wrote, "The key to understanding the crash appears to be the complete
cessation of communication between the pilots and the control tower...It
(the accident cause) had to be something that caused a loss of communication
as well as of control." The second part of this proposition is partly true.
The first part is simply silly.

Of relatively small importance but worth noting is the fact that there never
was any communication between the pilots and the control tower. The
Eveleth-Virginia Municipal airport has no control tower. Planes arriving
under instrument flight plans are under the control of Duluth Approach
Control. Planes entering traffic there announce their presence to each
other over the "Unicom" radio channel. It cannot be said that there was a
"cessation" of communications that never existed.

Fetzer is much concerned that the pilots did not report their problem on the
radio. He thinks this is very suspicious, and indeed it does need
explaining. The explanation is that pilots very rarely tell anybody when
their plane goes out of control.

When a pilot gets in trouble with aircraft control and thinks it may be
possible to pull out of it he has much more important things to do than push
a mike button and tell somebody about it, and if he does pull out of it he
may very well not want the world to know anything happened (I've been there,
done that.). "Loss of Control" means certain death unless control is
regained in time, and thus leads instantly to attempts to regain control and
absolutely nothing else is of the slightest importance whatever until
control is regained and some composure regained. Once those happy events
occur, the next step is to do whatever is necessary to continue the flight
to an acceptable conclusion, followed often by figuring out what to tell
anybody about it, if anything at all. This can all happen in a very few
seconds, but it is only at this point that radio transmissions are likely to
be made.

Once a pilot realizes for sure he's going to die in five seconds or so it is
quite likely his mind focuses on things other than telling somebody about
it. Typically, the cockpit voice recorder captures "Oh s--t!" on the
intercom and nothing else.

So much for "cessation of communications." Now to loss of control.

Aircraft accidents are almost always the result of a combination of
unexpected events or factors. Had any one of them been different the
accident would not have occurred. And, it is always fully-qualified pilots
who have accidents, for otherwise they would not have been flying the plane.
Needless to say, no pilot ever has more than one fatal accident.

From the news accounts it is apparent that both pilots had serious
weaknesses. "(The captain) just seemed real slow. Always hitting the wrong
things, saying wrong things... .forgetful and made random errors. . ..had a
bad feeling about him.... a smart guy, intelligent, but he was lacking
something,"<1> and two copilots had to take the controls from him for
failing to maintain altitude in weather.<2> The captain made mistakes of a
type that indicates a disorderly thinking process. He was weak and he knew
it and if the word got to management his flying career would abruptly end.
He let his copilots do most of the flying, <1, 2, 3> which is good to give
them experience, but also reduces the odds of them seeing him make mistakes
and thus may actually have been a cover-up. He had a confidence problem.

"(The co-pilot had) 701 hours of flying time...tended to be 'fixated' during
his approaches and 'airspeed and torque (engine power) would...get too low.'
..had a habit of keeping both hands on the flight controls and had to be
reminded to keep one hand on the throttles to control airspeed...had trouble
grasping airplane system knowledge."<2> He clearly tended to have "tunnel
vision," a narrow awareness of what was going on with the plane and around
him, not on top of the situation but rather a reactor to it.

I've known pilots like each of them, and covered for some of them, and
limited the missions for others until they gained or regained proficiency.
As a flight examiner I've given check rides to pilots I already knew were
weak, and passed them because they did what the check required of them.
Check rides are objective and cannot test every combination of
possibilities. They are like photographs, a slice of time, not like any
other, and weak pilots can pass them when they're having a good day. All
pilots have weaknesses, and bad days, which is one reason for having two
pilots in a cockpit. A proficient captain can back up a weak copilot while
he gains experience and competence, and a good copilot can keep a weak or
fading captain out of trouble until he retires or flunks a check ride. But
two weak pilots together in the same plane are an accident looking for a
place to happen.

Weather often creates good places for accidents to happen. Fetzer wrote
that "the weather was perfectly fine" for the flight. Perhaps he means that
weather did not by itself cause the crash, which is true, but weather is
almost never the sole cause of a crash. It is the things pilots DO about
the weather that causes weather-factor crashes. Weather certainly did
affect this flight.

Weather dominated the captain's thinking before and during the flight and
determined the rules of the flight and required an instrument approach at
destination. The weather was forecast to be above legal landing minimums,
for if not the captain would have had no decision to make. He could have
simply canceled the flight. But he had to make a decision and he didn't
like it. The weather was for him marginal but since it was legal it was
difficult to justify not going. He couldn't back out gracefully. He took a
chance to avoid having to explain why he wouldn't fly to an airport other
pilots were flying to. Perhaps he didn't realize his copilot's weaknesses.
The flight would be routine, provided nothing unexpected happened.

Something unexpected happened. On the descent they may have picked up a
little ice on the wings, not enough to see but enough to disturb the airflow
a little and raise the stall speed a few knots. They may have pulled the
power way back and let the plane coast smoothly from cruise altitude down to
approach altitude, then leveled off and forgot to push the power up. This
is easy to do and easy to miss when both pilots are a little disorganized
and not functioning as a team. They were going off the final approach
course, which would have required the pilot's attention to correct back, and
perhaps make him think there was a crosswind and try to mentally calculate
how much correction to apply, and thus reduce his attention to aircraft
control. By now they were a little behind the airplane, a little task
saturated, and they knew it. If the speed was low, and/or the wings a
little iced, and a correction toward course was made roughly or jerkily, the
plane could easily have stalled, or at least a stall warning may have
sounded which would be totally unexpected and thus alarming. They were
still in the weather at the time, and probably they seldom practiced stall
recoveries purely on instruments, possibly never in actual weather.

To the above add a probable complication. A Star Tribune article of March
27th reported that an NTSB chart (probably based on FAA radar) showed the
plane "flying at a speed of 170 knots 5 miles from the runway.<4> That's
pretty fast for that distance, and consistent with coasting down from
altitude with the power back and the landing gear still up, possibly to get
though an icing level quickly. The published minimum altitude at five miles
is 2900 feet, over 1,500 feet above field elevation. They had to get rid of
about 40 knots and at least 1,000 feet of altitude and lower the landing
gear and stabilize the power and airspeed and get below the clouds and be
pretty well lined up with the runway in the next four miles in order to be
able to land. They were considerably behind events, behind the airplane as
pilots would say, and a lot of activity would be compressed into those four
miles. Too much?

The chart showed the plane at 129 knots less than three miles from the
runway, <4> which was about right. The final approach should have been
stabilized at least by then; gear down, flaps set, power and airspeed
stabilized, on course, rate of descent stable. But a mile later the chart
showed the plane at only 76 knots and still in the clouds at just above 400
feet above the ground. <4> It's impossible to know from the published story
the accuracy and scan rate of the radar that provided this information, but
assuming the numbers are close two things stand out. One, there are three
published instrument approaches (depending on the navigational aid used) for
this runway and the lowest minimum ceiling for any of them is 400 feet - the
weather was actually at or below published minimums. The captain had been
briefed before takeoff that the ceiling was at 900 feet and probably
expected to break out of the clouds three or four miles from the runway.
That they did not may well have upset his planning and further damaged his
composure. Two, the decrease of airspeed between three and two miles was
drastic. One possible reason was that the power was pulled way back, and
then the landing gear was dropped (as in "Oops! Forgot something!"), leaving
them with low power and high drag and thus a very rapid bleed-off of
airspeed and changing control pressures and just too many things changing
all at once.

Now add one more unexpected factor, the immediate reaction to a poorly
understood emergency by two weak and apprehensive pilots. They may well
have BOTH tried to recover the aircraft, at the same time, in conflicting
ways, and they had no time to sort it out. At low speed any abrupt or
uncoordinated maneuver would cause a stall. It may have taken as little as
5 seconds from their first inkling of serious trouble to enter an
unrecoverable situation.

All of these possibilities lead to the one most likely thing, stall. Fetzer
wrote that "actual tests with King Air Al00s have shown that they do not
stall out until air speed fall below 70 knots...(the stall warning alarm)
triggers off at 85 knots." Aircraft stall is not nearly so simple.

There is no such thing as a "stall speed", except at a specific combination
of weight, configuration and maneuver. Stall is a function of angle of
attack, the angle at which the airflow strikes the wing, and above a certain
angle of attack the airflow over the top of the wing becomes turbulent and
lift is lost. Wings are designed so that the critical angle of attack
varies a little along the wing, e.g. stall may begin near the wing root
causing mild turbulence the pilot can feel and recognize as a warning, while
the outer part of the wing is still flying and aileron control is still
effective.

In perfectly straight and level flight (called "1 G flight") at a specific
weight there is in fact a stall speed (published in the flight manual), a
knot above and there's no stall, a knot below and there's "burble" the pilot
can feel, and X knots below that the whole wing stalls. Stall
characteristics vary with the wing design, but commonly there is a nose
drop, some times accompanied with the drop of one wing (and the amount and
balance of power on the plane at the time may influence all that). In a
turn the inside wing is a tiny bit slower and it will stall first and drop,
increasing the bank and causing the nose to drop even more.

To get out of a stall the pilot must reduce angle of attack, usually by
lowering the nose (towards the ground). He will almost certainly also add
power but some altitude loss is inevitable. The deeper the stall the longer
to recover and the greater the loss of altitude and pilot composure. He
must return to level flight which means he must stop the descent, which
means he must have more lift than he needed for level flight, which means he
must have more speed than he had at the time of the stall or he will exceed
the critical angle of attack and stall again. This is called a secondary
stall and it is quite common when a pilot is in a bit of a panic. Flying
requires thinking ahead and staying ahead, and thinking under pressure, and
composure.

Given a specific stall speed in 1 G flight at a given weight, there is a
different stall speed (but always the same critical angle of attack) at all
other conditions of flight. In a 60 degree banked level turn the plane must
pull 2 Gs, which means the wing must generate twice as much lift as in 1 G
flight, which means the speed must be high enough to generate double the
lift without exceeding the critical angle of attack. If the speed is less
and the pilot attempts a sudden 2 G turn, or pull out, the wing will exceed
the critical angle of attack and stall. The pilot can then immediately
release some back-pressure on the elevator control and reduce the angle of
attack and thus usually stop the stall, but this interrupts the maneuver.
If I recall correctly, a 30 degree bank level turn requires 1.14 Gs, and
thus 1.14 times the lift and some higher speed than 1 G level flight. Any
amount of pull-up from that point will increase the stall speed and any
amount of push-over will reduce it.

Stall warning devices usually measure angle of attack rather than speed, so
it is misleading to say that they function at a given speed. Rapidly or
roughly increasing the angle of attack may result in going through the stall
wamings and immediately entering what is called "high-speed" or
"accelerated" stall.

So, does all this tell us what caused the Wellstone crash? No it does not.
The precise causes will probably never be known. The pilots probably didn't
realize them all by the moment of their death. All it does is tell us that
pilot error was quite possible, perhaps highly probable, and thus there is
no need or justification for turning to conspiracy theories.

The question does arise, may be asked in court, "Shouldn't somebody have
prevented these two pilots from flying together?" That would depend on how
pilot supervision is commonly done in commercial aviation. In a military
fighter squadron supervision is tight, flight commanders regularly fly with
their pilots and know their weaknesses and adjust their challenges to their
ability. In bomber or transport units that use formed crews the same people
fly with each other most of the time and weaknesses are known and dealt
with. In units and commercial operations that do not use formed crews
trouble-spotting and supervision is much more difficult. Suppose a captain
makes five dumb mistakes in a month but each with a different copilot. None
see a pattern, and everybody makes a dumb mistake now and then, so nobody
reports a problem. The captain knows of course, and he should get some more
training or other help, or quit. But if he lacks integrity and/or common
sense and needs the job he may just try to fake it and hang on, and he may
get away with it for a long time. Short of using formed crews, pilots and
copilots who always fly together, I don't know any way to avoid the problem.

In flying as in all other serious endeavor there is no substitute for
personal integrity.

--------------

Footnotes:

<1> "More criticism of Wellstone pilots," Minneapolis Star Tribune 3/6/03 by
Tony Kennedy and Greg Gordon.

<2> "Wellstone's pilot balked at flying on morning of crash," Star Tribune
2/22/03 by Kennedy & Gordon.

<3> "Pilot in command of Wellstone flight often let copilot fly," Star
Tribune 12/22/02 by Kennedy & Paul McEnroe.

<4> "Wellstone plane was flying too slowly, investigators say," Star Tribune
3/27/03 by Tony Kennedy.

The author is a retired Lt. Col. in the Air Force, formerly Director of
Operations and Training for the 23d Air Division Headquarters at Duluth Air
Base and an active jet pilot there. He flew all-weather fighter interceptor
jets in several assignments and combat as a forward air controller over the
Ho Chi Minh Trail in Laos during the Vietnam War.

[Minstrel Boy]

365. So I take it you've nothing to say regarding

the FBI's arrival upon the scene just 45 minutes after the crash was located, (and the redaction of the FBI from police records, and the withholding of Duluth flight information for reasons of "national security"), the intense fire which consumed the fuselage, burning with an unusual blue smoke, though the wings, containing the fuel tanks, had separated and were largely intact.

In case you missed post 355, once again:

No one who supports the "It was an accident, you fools!" supposition has addressed these issues:

The arrival of an FBI recovery team from Minneapolis just 45 minutes after the crash was identified. This is significant because:

- The FBI had not been notified of the crash.
- Minneapolis is a 40 minute flight from Eveleth.
- The FBI team secured the perimeter, and had the site to itself for eight hours before the arrival of the NTSB.
- Despite witnesses, including a local sherriff, seeing the FBI on site 45 minutes after the crash, the FBI has since been elusive about the arrival time, moving it back, in at least one instance, more than three hours.
- The arrival of an FBI recovery team so soon upon an isolated crash site suggests anticipation, which in turn suggests the possibility of tampering with the evidence for the eight hours in which they had the site to themselves.
- Curiously, members of the Minneapolis FBI recovery team had been accused of stealing evidence from the WTC site.

The intense fire in the fuselage, which burned with an unusual blue smoke. This is significant because:

- Fuel would burn with a heavy black smoke.
- The fuel was stored in the wings.
- The wings separated upon impact.
- The wings were charred and damaged, but did not burn as intensely as the fuselage.

These points were introduced, with links and testimony, in posts numbered 133, 171, 327, 334 and 338, and the questions they raise have not been answered by coincidence theorists. Perhaps they overlooked them. So, one last time - any takers?

[Padraig18]

367. Links to back up *ALL* the things you 'assert', please? n/t

[9215]

369. "Reinvent the wheel tactic":

Another diversionary tactic.

[Padraig18]

371. No

It's called *proof*, as opposed to anecdotes. WHERE is a link to this 'blue smoke' story? Where is a link to this 'police log redaction' story? Where is a link to this 'FBI story'?

Get back to me on it, if you dare.

[Minstrel Boy]

374. Look to the original posts, I listed their numbers for your convenience

above. You'll find links there.

As to stickdog's added remarks re: the redaction of FBI from the record of the crash site and the withholding of information regarding flights out of Duluth, I promptly found this. Whether it's the same source as his, I don't know:

"I have traveled to the Eveleth Sheriff’s Office to review the official logs of persons coming into and departing from the crash scene, only to discover they are grossly incomplete. The records I was given as the 'original' logs were on assorted legal pads. The 'computer log' created from them not only included no entries prior to 3 PM (apart from setting up 'North Command' at 12:20 PM) but excluded a whole sheet of names of FBI agents. If there were as many as 100 agents on the scene, as another source has told me, there is nothing in the logs to substantiate it nor the presence of anyone else on the scene before 3 PM.

"That in itself is disturbing, but the situation is even worse. In my research on the time of arrival of the FBI, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the FAA on 8 January 2003 for information about private and charter flights into the Duluth International Airport on the morning of 25 October 2002. I heard back by a letter dated 30 January 2003 that my request was being forwarded to the same office sending the letter. By a letter dated 10 February 2003, I heard from the same office that I should not expect a response until around 1 August 2003 and that there would be a charge of .10 per page. By a letter dated 28 February 2003, however, I was informed that 'the requested data has been purged'. Why am I not surprised?"
http://www.reader-weekly.com/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/0313Wellstone.htm

[Padraig18]

375. Jim fetzer? PROFESSOR Jim Fetzer from MN?

LOL! Is this the same Jim Fetzer who (along with the UM) is being sued for defamation by the copilot's family? THAT Jim Fetzer?

He'll be lucky to settle that lawsuit in the low 7-figure range. His lawyers are trying desperatley to bail out his sinking boat with a tea cup, and losing...

[Minstrel Boy]

376. Is ad hominem all you have?

I'm not going to squander my afternoon sparring with you on this, but really: is that all you have? And no response to any of the points regarding witness statements as to the FBI's arrival, the blue smoke, the intense fire in the fuselage?

[Padraig18]

384. Is that all YOU have?

What is it about the words 'link' and 'proof' you folks don't seem to get? Your 'post above' refers to #133 and maybe to #171; only 171 contains a link to anything at ALL, but guess what? It's a monograph with a dead link for it's alleged 'attribution' or 'source'!

Some 'proof'. :eyes:

Face it--- you have NO proof w-h-a-t-s-e-v-e-r, and sine you are allegeing a crime, it's up to you to provide some.

[Minstrel Boy]

392. You know that's not true.

There is also this: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=271 besides the "monograph" you dismiss out of hand. And by the way, here is the fixed bad link for its attribution: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=25121

I would provide links to the works of Jim Fetzer, as he's actually done first-hand research all of these points, but no doubt you'd respond with a dismissive horse laugh. So why bother? (BTW, the lawsuit against Fetzer is frivolous. It's brought by a Republican, who believes Fetzer has libelously accused senior Republicans of murder. Fetzer has merely said they may be involved, not asserted that they are. And the Clintons faced nastier attacks regarding Foster, and on much more specious grounds, and their accusers were not hounded in the manner Fetzer is.)

Here's a CNN article which mentions the blue smoke, the intense fire which destroyed the fuselage, while the wings, carrying the fuel, were damaged to a lesser extent:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Midwest/10/26/wellstone.investigation/

[Padraig18]

393. A complete and total refutation of Fetzer's 'reasoning'.

http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/sNOWPyyiSqnbFc1Om1bxo4hShArkHSHrmdw7juPZAGJEKzF1CI3Da5Rk443xBqhNjnqbqZT9lsZg__NsM-qFDq631UJVa7E/INITIAL%20ESSAY-REV.%20JUNE%2020%2C%2003.htm

[Minstrel Boy]

396. You still haven't addressed facts such as

- the FBI's astonishing early arrival on the scene and the purging of Duluth's flight records.
- the unusual blue smoke from the fuselage, rather than the expected heavy black smoke from the wings' fuel tanks.
- the intense fire which consumed the cockpit and fuselage, while the wings, containing the fuel, were separated and not nearly as damaged.

Rather, you simply link to the website of a Republican attack dog who asserts that the good name of Dick Cheney is being dragged through the mud. :eyes:

[Padraig18]

402. For the simple reason that...

... you still haven't provided proof of any of that TO address. link to the FBI 'arrival evidence', please, e.g. ? Assertions and anecdotes are NOT 'evidence'.

[Minstrel Boy]

403. Somehow I think nothing short of an

official statement from the FBI will satisfy you, so here's where I stop wasting my time.

[Padraig18]

409. You should have stopped when you started listening to whack job Fetzer!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=561809&mesg_id=573532&page=

[stickdog]

412. Yeah, he's a professor who doesn't believe Oswald acted alone.

And all professors are whack jobs, a priori.

And every person who doesn't believe Oswald acted alone is a whack job, a priori.

Right?

[Padraig18]

414. Lack of coimplete disclosure

he's also the whack job who believes that space shuttle was crashed by an EMP device, that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9-11... Ya know, you can lie by omission, as well as by declaration.

The man is a total, raving lunatic.

[stickdog]

419. Really? Or are you just taking his speculations out of context? (NT)

[Padraig18]

424. Prove me wrong. n/t

[stickdog]

429. You make an unsupported assertion as part of your ad hominem attack.

And I'm required to prove it wrong?

What happened to your "burden of proof" arguments, Padraig?

[Padraig18]

431. Odd time for you to finally pay attenmtion to my 'burden of proof' arg's

Seeing as how you have deliberately and systematically ignored trhem up until this point (and still are, I add)...

[Minstrel Boy]

438. Just wondering, Padraig18:

is there anyone who has researched American political assassinations of the past 40 years whose work you respect? I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinly curious.

[Padraig18]

440. Yes

I've read Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" twice, and found it very sound.

[Minstrel Boy]

443. Thanks for the answer,

and it was the one I was expecting.

[stickdog]

399. The ravings of a lunatic.

My Hypothesis

The plane crashed due to turbulence in the weather.

A wild ass guess supported only by the fact that weather systems sometimes demonstrate chaotic features.

Note that if weather systems were always chaotic, then every forecast -- even one for weather during the next hour -- would be utterly useless.

The author supplies no evidence that the weather was chaotic at the time of the crash. On the contrary, the maximum wind velocity measured during the entire period was less than 3 mph.

Turbulence, indeed.

[Padraig18]

413. If anyone is a lunatic, it's Fetzer!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=561809&mesg_id=573532&page=

[stickdog]

421. Avoiding the point again, Padraig18? (NT)

[Padraig18]

425. You HAD a point?

Fetzer is a lunatic.

[stickdog]

389. Let us know how that lawsuit turns out. Discovery is a wonderful thing.

As if anybody would get past square one with such a legal case ...

[Padraig18]

404. Professor Fetzer's CV: Whack job with an advanced degree

Fetzer has admitted that he thinks (a) most of the photo evidence in the JFK assassination has been doctored, (b) that there is as much evidence that the Apollo missions were faked as that they were real, (c) that the rain sensors placed in Dealey Plaza by the City of Dallas are really "listening devices" placed there by the 6th Floor Museum, (d) that the space shuttle (like the Wellstone aircraft) may have been stuck down by an EMP blast, (e) that a DOD missile hit the Pentagon on 9/11/01 and not an airliner carrying the wife of the Solicitor General of the United States and many others.

Fetzer relies upon newspaper reports, anecdotes from friends or associates and his own ignorant musings to reach his conclusions in the Wellstone case. Airplane accident investigation is an enormously complex and difficult job. Many NTSB investigations take years to complete. I know of no NTSB investigations which have been bent by political pressure. Yet Fetzer has already proclaimed that any NTSB conclusions are not to be believed. Backstopping the NTSB investigation is the fact that in this case as in others, the NTSB investigation will be scrutinized several times over when the lawsuits incident to this plane crash are litigated.

There are many things about the present administration in Washington that many of us don't like. We don't like being lied to and we don't like the transformation of American society and the world order which this administration is attempting to bring about. But the proper response to this is reasoned discourse and solid investigative reporting. It is not giving in to the shrill paranoia of a self-aggrandizing academic whose pedestrian career never gave him earlier the national attention he desired.

[TrogL]

398. "unusual" blue smoke?

Where does it say, anywhere, that the smoke was unusual.

First off, define "blue". What most people call blue goes all the way down into indigo. Smoke is not a uniform colour, especially viewed from a distance and especially viewed from above where it reflects the sky.

Last I heard, your theory was the pilots were zapped by a space-ray gun. Does this have something to do with "blue smoke"?

[Minstrel Boy]

401. It was described as "light blue" and coming from the fuselage,

not the wings. There is no fuel tank in the fuselage, and the wings had separated. So, what caused the fire and the blue smoke? Are these unreasonable questions?

"Gary Ulman, professional pilot and assistant manager of the Eveleth airport, heard radio reports that a plane was missing and took off about 10:55 to look. Ulman told AFP that while he saw 'light bluish-grayish smoke” coming up from the trees 2.1 miles south of the airport, he didn’t think that it could be the plane because “that was way too far off course.'

"AFP asked Ulman several times to clarify the color of the smoke because his description of 'light blue' smoke coming from the crash site is different from the expected thick black smoke that is usually seen coming from fires in which aviation fuel is the primary substance burning.

"Ulman flew over the smoke and told AFP that he saw a 'hot and intense fire' consuming the plane’s fuselage on the ground. He returned to the airport and took the local fire chief up to survey the crash site and determine how to access the wreck from the ground. Ulman told AFP that on this flight, at about 11:15 a.m., he saw that the burning fuselage had nearly 'disintegrated.' He said the plane’s tail and wings had been detached from the body of the plane. It is important to note that the King Air’s fuel tanks are located in the wings of the plane; there is no fuel tank in the fuselage."
http://www.tc.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=7646&group=webcast

And by the way, WTF are you talking about, "my theory" is the pilots were zapped by ray guns? I never said any such thing, nor have I proposed any theory whatsoever as to how the plane was brought down. But it's always nice to stir the pot and poison the well, huh?

[Padraig18]

405. Like hell you didn't

You introduced the whole EMP and microwave pilot-disabling device theory.

[Minstrel Boy]

407. like hell I did

Maybe someone did, but it wasn't me. I suppose you can prove otherwise?

A pretty sharp example of how you frame an argument.

[Padraig18]

411. Apology

I get you two conspiracy theorists confused; it was stickdog.

[TrogL]

428. same here

This thread's gotten so convoluted that I couldn't figure out who I was responding to.

[Minstrel Boy]

432. apologies appreciated

and I know, this thread is becoming impossible to navigate.

[Padraig18]

436. Ain't it the truth?

I need my Boy Scout compass to find my way around--- plus, I'm on dialup! Argggggggggg! :P

[9215]

370. How does that square with this:

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/franklind136346.html


Your goal is obvious: "Everybody, shut up, quit thinking and questioning the official stories and ignore those who do question them."

What is ironic is the "credentials" of the "experts" cited are less than wanting. One of them (Cycsz)who was running his mouth a mile a minute about how the accident could happen had no experience in aviation crashes, NONE! See my post on "Expert..... a CIA plant?"



Then when you look at the pattern of oddities and inaccuracies....Well let me just say that if the standard for taking action (read: independent investigation)was the same as Bush used for attacking Iraq, Bush would already be in jail awaiting execution. There is a gross double standard. The Right-wing gets to go to war on little more than hearsay, while those trying to expose their crimes have to have 100% proof before even an investigation begins.

That is really the fundamental rot of this vile episode in US history. These fascist bastards do what they want, when they want and will kill anybody who gets in the way, including thousands of innocent people for oil, while those attempting to investigate them are muzzled by a vast array of Psy-ops disinformationsts, but that is only one segment of a mush grander operation to incapacitate the minds people.

Now go ahead, call me paranoid. Try to trivialize my claim, but then look up Operation Mockingbird, Amadeus, Council for Cultural Freedom, Paperclip, Pegasaus,Cyclops, MK-Ultra. The list goes on and on.

[Padraig18]

373. No

"Your goal is obvious: "Everybody, shut up, quit thinking and questioning the official stories and ignore those who do question them."
Hardly. My goal is to wait for the NTSB to issue its report; they are the investigating agency and have the facilities and expertise to determine what happened, insofar as such a thing *can* be determined. You 'conspiracy theorists' aren't even willing to do THAT MUCH! No, you're already screaming 'murder!', before you even know what the NTSB's report says, ffs!

Your premature, shrill, hysterical and frankly paranoid rantings nonwithstanding, planes crash every f*cking day, even when they have important people on them.

You have BUPKUS in the way of evidence or proof to justify your rants about sonmeone murdering Paul Wellstone!

[stickdog]

386. Planes with Bush's number one political enemy on them do not crash

every day.

Planes with the strongest national voice for liberalism and integrity don't crash every day.

But these sorts of liberal icons do have a history of being assassinated, now don't they?

Meanwhile, the NTSB is not even considering the possibility that the crash was anything but an accident, despite that fact that they can't recreate anything like the events of the crash using flight simulation and a fully conscious pilot.

[9215]

446. Conspiracy denier eh?

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

What does this suggest?

[TrogL]

382. Excellent analysis

I've specifically avoided posting to this thread because absolutely nothing new was being contributed. This is something I haven't seen before.

It gives a perfectly rational explanation for the crash.

• bad weather
  
• bad pilots
  
• bad luck
  

So, does all this tell us what caused the Wellstone crash? No it does not. The precise causes will probably never be known. The pilots probably didn't realize them all by the moment of their death. All it does is tell us that pilot error was quite possible, perhaps highly probable, and thus there is no need or justification for turning to conspiracy theories.

I totally agree.

[stickdog]

385. How about the simple murder of a man with thousands of bitter enemies?

Is murder now a "conspiracy theory"?

Because powerful, important people with thousands of other powerful, important people who wish to see them dead never get murdered?

What does it tell you about the Bush Administration that even Columbo is now out of a job?

[Padraig18]

387. You haven't proven it's murder.

*YOU* are asserting that proposition, so quit whining and PROVE IT!

[stickdog]

394. I haven't even alleged murder.

All I'm saying is that you can't demand proof that the plane crash was not an accident without even offering an explanation -- much less proof -- for your assumption that the plane crash was an accident.

It's simply illogical.

Planes crash everyday. People are murdered every day.

Plane crashes that can't be explained worth a damn happen seldomly. King Air A-100 planes crash seldomly. Planes with Senators in them crash seldomly. Important political figures are assassinated seldomly.

You can't simply assume this was an accident. There is no default explanation.

Your claim that the crash HAD TO BE an accident requires a HIGHER standard of proof than my claim that the crash MAY HAVE BEEN murder.

If you can't understand this simple and utterly undeniable concept, I suggest that you back to logic school -- if you ever attended in the first place.

[Abaques]

397. Not true

In post #385 your subject is:

How about the simple murder of a man with thousands of bitter enemies?


And you state:

Is murder now a "conspiracy theory"?

Because powerful, important people with thousands of other powerful, important people who wish to see them dead never get murdered?

What does it tell you about the Bush Administration that even Columbo is now out of a job?



I think its pretty clear that you are implying that Wellstone was murdered. To state: "I haven't even alleged murder." is pretty dishonest.

None of the people attacking your arguments have said that it absolutely was an accident. It just seems like the most likely occurance given the information that is available. When we attack your arguments that it could not have been an accident we are simply proving your arguments wrong, not affirming that it was indeed an accident.

[stickdog]

434. You haven't done anything except whine that I don't have absolute proof --

a point I freely admit.

I'm arguing that Wellstone's crash MAY HAVE BEEN murder.

I realize that there are two sides to this argument. You seemingly do not.

You simply do not understand how to logically evaluate two competing speculative theories.

[Padraig18]

400. I suggest that it is *your* logic that is flawed

The presumption (consult dictionary for meaning, if you need to) *is* an accident; the reverse would be absurd. In the absence of *proof to the contrary* (which you do not possess), ther is, in fact, a default explanation.

Your insults are lame, and merely serve to demonstrate the absolute absence of evidence to back your ridiculous hypothesis.

[TrogL]

442. Attempting to crash a plane isn't murder?

Last I heard your theory was somebody dragging the plane off course with a bogus beacon to get them within range then blasting the pilots with microwaves so they'd crash the plane.

Sounds like murder to me.

[TrogL]

391. Colombo?

Who's Colombo?

[stickdog]

395. Columbo

[TrogL]

420. I take it I'm not supposed to take you at face value

What does it tell you about the Bush Administration that even Columbo is now out of a job?

Last I heard, "Colombo" was a fictional character on a long-dead TV series.

If, indeed, the Bush administration is attempting to employ TV characters (as opposed to actors) perhaps Spongebob Squarepants could be put to use.

What, exactly, is your point?

[Padraig18]

426. His point is being heavy on questions and light on answers. n/t

[stickdog]

383. Here is the entire debate.

http://www.readerweekly.org/Reader/Reader_Weekly/Jim_Fetzer/Wellstone_JimFetzer.html

Get both sides before deciding.

[Must_B_Free]

433. I'll PROVE now for once and for all that it was FOUL PLAY

The tipoff is in the coverup.

I watched it unfold live. I saw the blue smoke on TV and I saw the report of the FBI arriving on the scene. The official investigators were rerouted and couldn't get to the scene for 8 hours, supposedly because of "bad weather".

But the real proof is in the media reaction. The give away is that the media didn't speculate that it was possibly terrorism. We are talking about a US Senator who had already had at least one attempt on his life. And we were in the middle of a war on terror - the country was literally at WAR against terrorism. You're telling me that a US Senator was killed in suspect circumstances, and noone asked if it was terrorism?

Of course not - because they already knew it WAS terrorism - terrorism against the so called "leftists".

It was a coverup from the first moment. If this were a republican, you can be sure it would have been blamed on Saddam or Osama's terrorist cell. At the very least there would have been a question of whether it was possibly terrorism.

But no - they knew it was ice on the wings and they were reporting it on CNN BEFORE anyone even GOT TO THE PLANE... The whole psyop was cooked up in advance.

How long will they kill our leaders while we stand aside and look?

[stickdog]

437. All of the false weather reports are what put me on the trail as well.

Any explanations for this, coincidence theorists?

[Capn Sunshine]

448. In all these 400 posts

which I just don't have time to read, did anyone post the vid of the "anomaly' that swept through doppler radar at the time of the crash?

[Minstrel Boy]

441. good point.

And since someone will undoubtedly screech "So CNN's in on it too?" I'll jump in and add that participation in a cover-up needn't be a wholly self-conscious act. It can be as simple as a reflex to "protect the system." Surely we've all seen plenty of that these past three god-awful years, and for many years before.

[TrogL]

444. I suppose the irony escapes you

This would be the same bad weather that caused the crash in the first place.

[9215]

447. Conspiracy deniers relying on totally corrupt NTSB

for the final word on Wellstone's crash.

This organization along with the FAA is a CIA lapdog, involved in cover-ups of drug running and airline accidents for decades. How could the CIA have run drugs into the US which is an established and multiply corroborated fact that happened on numerous occassions and places, without controlling the CIA and NTSB?

Answer: They couldn't have.



Ex WWII pilot and FAA investigator Rodney Stich has exposed many of these corruptions:

Stich's lawsuits against NTSB: http://www.druggingamerica.com/judges.html


Also google: Stich+NTSB+CIA

[TahitiNut]

449. Locking this thread and openig continuation for discussion ...

Please continue discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=575117">Poll question: The Paul Wellstone crash was... (cont'd).

The poll was active for over 50 hours, with more than 520 DUers voting. The results (below) would be highly unlikely to change significantly.

Thank you,
TahitiNut - DU moderator

[TahitiNut]

451. Fixed link to continuation thread ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=575117

[KFC]

450. Just PROVE it

All of this crap has been rehashed on many threads before.

It is simple, really. Provide unambiguous legal proof that Wellstone was murdered. Take it to a lawyer and make the case. If you can get to trial, win or lose, then I would concede you have a reasonable point. Otherwise, these Wellstone murder theories amount to nothing but bullshit.